
I 



THE 

GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY 

OF THE 

HOLY SCRIPTURES. 



edinburgh : 
printed cy hallantynk and company, 
faul's work, canon gate. 



THE 

BOOKS 

OF THE 

OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS 

PROVED TO EE 

CANONICAL, 

AND 

THEIR VERBAL INSPIRATION 

MAINTAINED AND ESTABLISHED ; 

WITH 

AN ACCOUNT OF THE INTRODUCTION AND CHARACTER 

OF THE 

APOCRYPHA. 

EY 

ROBERT HALDANE, Esg. 

THIRD EDITION, MUCH ENLARGED. 



EDINBURGH: 

PRINTED FOR W. WHITE & CO. EDINBURGH ! 
T. HAMILTON & CO. LONDON ; 
Wo CARSON, DUBLIN. 



1830. 



EXCHANGE 
WtfV.cf WASTER* ON T , L i B R A R 
SEPT 24. i$3g 



PREFACE. 



The Canon and Inspiration of the Holy Scrip- 
tures are subjects of the highest importance to 
every Christian. The Divine Books contain 
the only information with respect to the sal- 
vation of sinners ; and the duties, privileges* 
and hopes of the heirs of heaven. All that can 
he known of the mind of God, and of the fu-, 

1 re state of man, must'bVleamecl'fiom them. 

2 e theories of men wrfch respect to the things 
I God, and reasonings respecting revealed 

&i jects, grounded on any other foundation 

but the divine declarations, are not only fal- 
lacious as far as concerns their immediate 
objects, but prevent an accurate acquaintance 
with the ways of God, by opening innumera- 
ble devious paths, which deceitfully promise 
to lead to heavenly knowledge. 



11 



PREFACE. 



The Bible not only contains tilings that are 
divinely accredited as true, but it contains all 
y^-^&H&. ythe truth on divine subjects that is accessible 
'tuuM^>o&^ | Q man * Hence every thing: that respects the 
^j^d^J^- particular books composing the Canon, and 
' ^the inspiration of these books, is of the live- 
liest interest to every Christian. Whatever 
tends to invalidate the authority of any par- 
ticular book of the Canon, or to add others to 
the number, ought to be met with the most 
decided opposition, as threatening to rob us 
of the most precious revealed truth, or to 
impose on us the traditions of men as the 
commandments of God. To reject a book 
whose authenticity rests on the authority of 
the Canon, is not only to give up the portion 
of divine truth which such book contains, but 
to take away the evidence of every other book 
standing on the same authority. If one book 
of the Canon is given up, how shall any other 
be retained on the authority of that Canon ? 
Is it a light thing to admit a principle that 
unsettles the evidence of every book of the 
Bible? Is it an innocent thing to charge as 
superfluous, unimportant, unholy, or unwor- 



PREFACE. Ill 

thy of God, any thing that there is authority 
to hold as his word ? What, then, shall be said 
of those Christians, who have not only disco- 
vered an unbecoming facility in surrendering 
parts of the book of God, but have laboured 
with the most strenuous exertions to unsettle 
the Canon, and have availed themselves of 
every resource, with which a perverse inge- 
nuity could supply them, to degrade some of 
the books that are as fully authenticated as any 
in that sacred collection ? 

In like manner, to recognise a book, not 
authenticated by the Canon, is to invalidate 
the authority of the Canon, and to lay a foun- 
dation for the admission of unaccredited books 
to an indefinite extent. It is obvious, that 
those who do so cannot be assured of the 
truths which they receive, nor that they have 
all revealed truths in the Bible. Such a mode 
of proceeding degrades the Word of God, un- 
settles the faith of the Christian, and greatly 
mars his edification and comfort. 

The inspiration of the Scriptures is a thing 
of equal importance with the authority of the 
Canon. If God is not the author of them, in 



IV PREFACE. 

the fullest and most complete sense of that 
< £ r - £ ^ term ? we cannot receive them as the word 
^ of God. The Scriptures so plainly assert their 
inspiration, that it is matter of astonishment 
that any who profess to believe them should 
have denied it. Yet many have contrived to 
hold the word, and to deny the thing itself. 
In this way, they perhaps hide even from 
themselves the boldness of their unhallowed 
speculations. That inspiration extends to 
words as well as to matter, is a thing so obvi- 
ous, that it never could have been questioned, 
if those who deny it had not misled themselves 
by their vain reasonings on the subject, or 
taken the contrary for granted without en- 
quiry, on the authority of others. A writing 
inspired by God self- evidently implies in the 
i very expression, that the words are the words 

of God ; and the common impression of man- 
kind coincides with this most entirely. That 
the inspiration is in the matter, not in the 
words ; that one part of Scripture is written 
; njhiL A^nwith one kind or degree of inspiration, and 
^f.^/^f another part with another kind or degree, is 
It^j^^^contrary to the phraseology, and totally with- 



PREFACE. 



V 



out foundation in any part, of the Scriptures 
themselves, and never could have suggested 
itself as a natural meaning of the word. This 
unholy invention is the figment of an ill-em- 
ployed ingenuity, either to invalidate some 
Scripture truths, or to repel some objections, 
which appeared otherwise unanswerable. It 
is an expedient to serve a purpose, and as 
little to be approved, when it is used to defend 
the declarations of God, as when it is used to 
overturn them. Yet degrading views both of 
the Canon and Inspiration of the Scriptures 
too generally prevail ; and the writers of most 
influence on the public mind, instead of cor- 
recting these errors, lend all their influence 
to their establishment. 

The plenary or verbal inspiration of the 
Holy Scriptures is not only established by the 
most express passages in the way of direct 
authority, but it is a matter of no light con- 
sideration that there are no opposing passages 
on the other side. Hardly an error ever was 
maintained, but what could press some pas- 
sage of the Word of God into its service, by 
the use of torture. Indeed, Aery many im- 



vi 



PREFACE. 



portant truths of the divine word are not 
without their difficulties, from passages that 
afford a handle to human ignorance and hu- 
man depravity. While these are always capa- 
ble of a solution in perfect accordance with 
the truths to which, at first sight, they may 
appear to be opposed, they prove a test of our 
submission to the divine wisdom. They mani- 
fest the childlike disposition of the people of 
God ; but they are as gins and snares to the 
wisdom of this world, and the wise are taken 
by them in their own craftiness. As the con- 
tiguity of the Canaanites manifested the unbe- 
lief of the people of Israel ; so these passages 
in the divine wisdom bring out into open 
avowal the enmity of men to the truth of 
God. But the inspiration of the Scriptures 
in the words as well as in the matter, is not 
opposed by any difficulty of this kind ; and 
, r the authors of the low and derogatory view of 
(fccu+j-e*, <^the word of God, which ascribes to it different 
^^^^^jdegrees of inspiration, cannot plead a single 
y /y^^i^ nassage that will afford them even the shadow 
/ of support.^ Their doctrine is but a theory— 
j a theory m opposition to the most express 



PREFACE. 



vii 



assertions of Scripture, and not countenanced 
by the allegation of a single text. 

Whence comes the Bible ? is a question in 
every way worthy of the deepest attention of 
the Christian. The grounds on which is rested 
the happiness of this world, and of the world 
to come, can never be too deeply examined. 
The title-deeds to so immense an inheritance 
are worthy of the constant researches of the 
life of man. 

To establish with the utmost precision what 
are the books belonging to the Canon of Scrip- 
ture, to fix the brand of reprobation on all 
false pretenders to the honour of inspiration, 
and to vindicate the writings of the Old Tes- 
tament and the New, as the words of the Spi- 
rit of God, can at no period be a useless labour. 
But present circumstances add greatly to this 
importance, and recent events have discovered 
not only ignorance on these subjects, where 
knowledge might have been expected, but 
opposition even from the friends of the Gospel. 
It is much to be regretted, that unscriptural 
opinions concerning these subjects have long 
been entertained, and have of late been advo- 



viii 



PREFACE. 



cated by persons, who might have been ex- 
pected to be the most zealous in opposing their 
progress. The Christian public are in the 
greater danger from the infection of this he- 
resy, that it is propagated by persons whom 
they have long been accustomed to regard as 
among the brightest ornaments of true reli- 
gion. Had these dangerous opinions made 
their appearance in the works of Socinians, 
Christians would have stood on their guard 
against them. But when the Canon is un- 
settled, and verbal inspiration is denied by 
men who profess to hold the distinguishing 
doctrines of the Gospel, many will be misled. 
If, then, we are commanded to contend ear- 
nestly for the faith once delivered to the saints, 
it is surely our duty to contend for the Canon 
and Inspiration of the Bible, by which only 
that faith can be ascertained. Our reverence 
for the Bible depends on our full conviction 
of the plenary inspiration of the Apostles and 
Prophets, and our being satisfied that our 
Bible exclusively contains their writings. On 
these subjects the mind of every Christian 
should be fully informed and firmly esta- 



PREFACE. 



ix 



blished. Just views respecting them exalt 
our conceptions of the perfection of the Holy 
Scriptures, and tend to make us better ac- 
quainted with their contents. The opposite 
views have a contrary tendency in a very high 
degree. 

While the natural opposition of fallen man 
to God leads some to open and avowed infi- 
delity, it operates on a still greater number in 
the way of indifference to religion. It leads 
them to be satisfied with very lax and general 
views on a subject to which they are indis- 
posed, but which they dare not altogether ne- 
glect. Under the influence of this indifference 
many entertain no fixed views in regard to 
the Bible. They admit that the Scriptures 
contain a revelation from God, and that many 
parts of them are, therefore, entitled to our 
utmost reverence ; but they do not perceive 
that all parts of the Bible, whether history, 
prophecy, praise, or precepts, are so many 
integral and connected parts of one great 
whole, intimately connected with the cross of 
Christ, which forms the centre of revelation, 
without reference to which no part can be 



X 



PREFACE. 



understood. They may read the history of 
Israel, they may believe the facts recorded, 
and yet remain completely unacquainted with 
the instruction conveyed. They may admire 
the Proverbs of Solomon as the dictates of the 
wisest of men ; they may derive benefit from 
them in the regulation of their conduct in the 
world ; while their souls cleave to the dust, 
and they are treasuring up for themselves 
wrath against the day of wrath. They may 
read the predictions of the desolation of Tyre 
and Babylon ; they may acknowledge the 
proof which these afford of the divine fore- 
knowledge, while they remain utterly igno- 
rant of the nature of that kingdom, to the 
establishment of which all such events were 
subservient, and with which every part of 
revelation is closely and inseparably connect- 
ed. But when God opens the understanding 
to understand the Scriptures ; when men are 
made to know that all the prophets, both in 
the history of the past and the predictions of 
the future, bear witness to Christ, and that 
every circumstance recorded in the word of 
God, is a part of the testimony of Jesus, then 



PREFACE. 



xi 



they are led to exclaim, " the depth of the 
riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of 
God;" to pray with the Psalmist, " Open 
thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous 
things out of thy law and with the Apostle, 
they follow on to apprehend Christ Jesus, 
the Lord, in the diligent study of every part 
of the word of God. 

This naturally produces j ust views on the sub- 
ject of inspiration. Unless the mind be misled 
by false teaching, or perverted by some unscrip- 
tural theory, it puts an end to idle and impious 
speculations about supernatural influence be- 
ing unnecessary, when the sacred penmen are 
speaking of " common or civil affairs and 
about their mentioning " common occurrences 
or things in an incidental manner as any other 
plain and faithful men might do." We behold 
the word of God composed of many parts, but 
forming one grand connected system, like a 
building, so admirably constructed, that every 
stone increases its beauty and stability, and 
not one of which could be removed without 
injury. We behold the wisdom of God in em- 
ploying so many persons to labour in distant 



xii 



PREFACE. 



ages, and in different departments, producing 
in their various compositions a revelation of his 
will, complete in all its parts, and distinguished 
%^ why the most perfect unity, withoutjth<^ 

^^^^^ re ^ nn ^ nc Y9 or deficiency. From 
<rf not perceiving this, some attach different de- 
Agrees of authority to different parts of Scripture* 
In the same way, many prefer the discourses 
of Jesus to the other portions of the New Testa» 
ment, although, when about to leave the world, 
he informed his Apostles that there were many 
things which at present they could not bear, 
but which he would afterwards communicate 
to them by the teaching of his Spirit. Accord- 
ing to his promise, he endued them with power 
from on high, and consequently in their wri- 
tings we have the completion of divine revela- 
tion, the exhibition of the great salvation which 
at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, 
and which he more fully explained by speak- 
ing in his Apostles, 2 Cor. xiii. 3. 

It is the object of the following pages to ex- 
hibit the abundant evidence by which the au- 
thenticity of the books of the Old and New 
Testaments is confirmed, and to prove that the 



PREFACE. 



xiii 



inspiration to which the Scriptures lay claim, is 
in the fullest sense plenary in every part of them, 
extending both to the ideas, and to the words 
in which these ideas are expressed. Hence the 
Scripture is described as the Word of God, and 
the words of which it is composed, are repre- 
sented as proceeding out of his mouth. This 
language is conclusive on the subject, and by 
directing the sacred writers to employ it, God 
has ascribed to himself whatever is written in 
the Bible, and requires all to listen to his 
word with the utmost reverence. Ish. 1, 2, 20. 

Two editions of this publication have already 
been sent into the world, but the present is 
greatly enlarged. An account is added of the 
Apocryphal writings, in which a view is given 
of the reasons that forbid their being received 
along with the word of God. Their usurpa- 
tion of the place they have long occupied in 
the estimation of many, is traced to its origin ; 
and their presumptuous claims to inspiration, 
or to any authority, are exploded. This is the 
more necessary, as many are but little ac- 
quainted with the manner in which these for- 
geries have obtained the situation they hold in 



xiv 



PREFACE. 



the Bibles of Roman Catholics and even of 
Protestants, or with the impiety of their con- 
tents. It is proved that the Apocrypha is not 
apart of God's word, and that instead of being 
a book of useful though uninspired instruction, 
it is a book of imposture and destructive de- 
lusion. 

A work has just appeared from the pen of 
Mr Carson, in which the false theories of in- 
spiration exhibited in some late publications, 
are triumphantly refuted.* The reader who 
desires to examine this important subject will 
find it advantageous to read that work in con- 
nexion with this publication. They both re- 
fer to it in different points of view. The one 
is in proof, the other in reply. The one aims 
at exhibiting the evidence, and the other an- 
swers objections ; and in order to have at once 



* " The Theories of Inspiration of the Rev. Daniel 
Wilson, Rev. Dr Pye Smith, and the Rev. Dr Dick, 
proved to be erroneous ; with Remarks on the Chris- 
tian Observer, and Eclectic Review. By Alexander 
Carson, A. M. minister of the gospel. Sold by W. 
Whyte and Co., Edinburgh ; T. Hamilton and Co., 
London ; and W. Carson, Dublin &c. &c. 



PREFACE. 



XV 



a view of the evidence drawn from Scripture 
of the doctrine of inspiration, and a solution 
of the most plausible cavils against it, both 
should be perused. A question of such im- 
portance demands full consideration, and if 
ingenuity has exerted its utmost efforts to 
shroud this subject in darkness, detail ought 
not to be thought tedious in restoring light and 
order. These publications together will, it 
is hoped, enlarge the views and fortify the con- 
victions of Christians respecting the divine ori- 
gin and absolute perfection of the Holy Scrip- 
tures, and will prove that those who recognise 
distinctions in the inspiration of the word of 
God, or who make concessions that virtually 
subvert it, are chargeable with no slight evil. 
After candidly weighing what is advanced, 
they will have reason to conclude that in the 
Bible they possess the whole word of God, and 
nothing but his word. In the appendix it will 
be grateful to them to observe, that the views 
of the inspiration of the Bible maintained in 
these publications are not new. They will see, 
by a number of quotations, that, though too 
much neglected, and even opposed by many, 



xvi 



PREFACE. 



the doctrine of the plenary inspiration of the 
Holy Scriptures has been, from the earliest 
times, the faith of some of the greatest orna- 
ments of the church of God. 



THE 



GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY 

OF THE 

HOLY SCRIPTURES.* 



OLD TESTAMENT. 

The Bible, which contains the account of the origin, 
progress, and nature of the Christian religion, is the 
production, not of one period, but of many ages. 
The writers of it succeeded each other, during the 
space of above 1500 years. The Scriptures of the 
Old Testament far exceed, in antiquity, all other 
historical records. Moses, who wrote the first five 
books, lived more than 1000 years before Herodo- 
tus, the father of Grecian history ; and rather earlier 
than the time of Herodotus, Ezra and Nehemiah 
completed the historical part of the Old Testament 
Scriptures. 

The longevity of the first generations of men, which 
accelerated the population of the world from a single 



* A genuine book is one written by the person whose 
name it bears, as the author of it. An authentic book is one 
that relates matters of fact, as they really happened. 
A 



2 GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY, 

pair, rendered a written revelation, between the fall 
of man and the promulgation of the law at Sinai, less 
necessary, as the knowledge of the Divine will was, 
during that period, transmitted from one age to an- 
other, by very few individuals. From Adam to 
Moses, although a space of about 2500 years, it pass- 
ed through only four intermediate persons. In all 
that time, God made himself known by visible inter- 
positions and signs, as in the cases of Cain and Babel, 
and held direct communication with prophets, who 
were revered as such by the people among whom they 
lived, which preserved his truth from being corrupted. 
Thus it was sufficiently early in the days of Moses, 
permanently to record that authentic revelation, which 
was then delivered. But, at that period, when the 
age of man was reduced nearly to its present limits, 
God separated a people from the nations, and gave 
them such an establishment, that full security was 
afforded for preserving entire his written word. 

Moses, who, at the giving of the law, acted the 
part of a mediator between God and the people of 
Israel, was called up to Mount Sinai, where he re- 
ceived those laws and institutions that were then 
enjoined. These, together with a history of the crea- 
tion, and of whatever, from the beginning, was ne- 
cessary for the instruction of the people of God, were 
committed by him to writing, in five books, and de- 
posited in the tabernacle by the side of the ark. 

These five books, called the Book of the Law, and 
also known by the name of the Pentateuch, (or five 
volumes,) constituted the first part of the sacred re- 
cords, and include the history of about 2550 years. 



OLD TESTAMENT. 



3 



The law was read every Sabbath-day in the syna- 
gogues, and again solemnly every seventh year. The 
king was required to copy it, and the people were 
commanded to teach it to their children, and to bear 
it as " signs upon their hands, and frontlets between 
their eyes/' The remaining books * of the Old Tes- 
tament, composed by different writers, carry the his- 
tory of Israel beyond the Babylonish captivity, and 
contain the messages of a succession of prophets till 
420 years before the coming of Christ, when, at the 
distance of about 1030 years from Moses, Malacbi, 
the last of the prophets, wrote. 

The books which compose the Old Testament 
Scriptures, were held by the Jews, in every age, to 
be the genuine works of those persons to whom they 
are ascribed ; and they have also been universally and 
exclusively, without any addition or exception, con- 
sidered by them as written under the immediate in- 
fluence of the Spirit of God. They preserved them 
with the greatest veneration ; and, at the same time, 
carefully guarded against receiving any apocryphal 
or uninspired books. While the Jews were divided 
into various sects, which stood in the most direct 
opposition to each other, there never was any differ- 
ence among them respecting the authority of the sa- 
cred writings. 

The five books of Moses were also preserved by 
the Samaritans, who received them nearly 700 years 
before the coming of Christ. Whatever disagree- 



* The exact time when the book of Job was written is not 
known. 



4 GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY. 

ment, in other respects, subsisted between them and 
the Jews, and however violent their enmity against 
each other, they perfectly united in admitting the 
authenticity and inspiration of the law of Moses, 
which they both adopted as their religious rule. In 
addition to all this, about 280 years before the Chris- 
tian era, the whole of the Old Testament was trans- 
lated into Greek ; a language which, from the time 
of Alexander's conquests, was commonly understood 
by the nations of the world. Thus, Jews, Samaritans, 
and all the civilized world, had access to these sacred 
boohs, which prevented the possibility of their being 
either corrupted or altered without its being gene- 
rally known. 

We are assured by Josephus, the Jewish historian, 
who was born about five years after the death of Christ, 
and who lived in the time of the Apostles, that the 
Jews acknowledged no books as Divine, but twenty- 
two. " We have not," he says, " an innumerable 
multitude of books among us, disagreeing from, and 
contradicting one another, (as the Greeks have,) but 
only twenty-two Books, which contain the records 
of all the past times ; which are justly believed to be 
Divine. And of them five belong to Moses, which 
contain his laws, and the traditions of the origin of 
mankind till his death. This interval of time was 
little short of 3000 years. But as to the time from 
the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes King 
of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, 
who were after Moses, wrote down what was done 
in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four 
Books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the 



OLD TESTAMENT. 



5 



conduct of human life. It is true, our history hath 
been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but 
hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the 
former by our forefathers, because there hath not 
been an exact succession of prophets since that time : 
And how firmly we have given credit to these books 
of our own nation, is evident by what we do ; for 
during so many ages as have already passed, no one 
hath been so bold as either to add any thing to them, 
to take any thing from them, or to make any change v v - : ^ k 
in tbem ; but it is become natural to all Jews, imme- ^ A ^^l^^ 
diately, and from their very birth, to esteem these 
Books to contain Divine doctrines?* and to persist in^'^/vVT^ 
them, and, if occasion be, willingly to die for them." Utce^Ac^A 
— Josephus, ed. 1784, vol. ii. 361. The Books here \ \ , . \, ! 
referred to are precisely the same that from the be- -w> .ca.Jtj^s 
ginning have been received by Christians, and that * 
are still acknowledged by the modern Jews, concern- 
ing whose undivided attachment to them, all that is ; 'y 
here asserted by Josephus is verified to the present day. /<> . 

Tlje authenticity of the Old Testament Scriptures. ' ^ v 
against which there is no contradictory testimony, is v - 
confirmed by many collateral evidences of customs, tra- ^ * " 
ditions, and natural appearances^ which have been col- 
lected from every part of the world. It is likewise sup- 
ported by all the notices to be found respecting them 
in the most ancient Heathen historians. Josephus ap- 
peals to the public records of different nations, and to a 
great number of books extant in his time, but now lost, 
as indisputable evidence, in the opinion of the Hea- 
then world, for the truth of the most remarkable events 
related in his History, the account of the early periods 



6 GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY. 

of which he professes to have taken principally from 
the Pentateuch. Porphyry, one of the most acute 
and learned of the early enemies of Christianity, ad- 
mitted the genuineness of the Pentateuch, and ac- 
knowledged that Moses was prior to the Phoenician 
Sanchoniathon, who lived before the Trojan war. 
He even contended for the truth of Sanchoniathon's 
account of the Jews, from its coincidence with the 
Mosaic history. Nor was the genuineness of the 
Pentateuch denied, by any of the numerous writers 
against the Gospel, in the first four centuries, al- 
though the Christian fathers constantly appealed to 
the history and prophecies of the Old Testament in 
support of the divine origin of the doctrines which 
they taught. The power of historical truth compel- 
led the Emperor Julian, whose favour to the Jews ap- 
pears to have proceeded only from his hostility to the 
Christians, to acknowledge, that persons instructed 
by the Spirit of God once lived among the Israelites ; 
and to confess that the books which bore the name 
of Moses were genuine ; and that the facts which they 
contained were worthy of credit. 

Of the genuineness and authenticity of their Scrip- 
tures, the Jews had the strongest evidence, which 
produced a corresponding impression. The five books 
of Moses are addressed to the Israelites as his con- 
temporaries, and had they not been both genuine 
and authentic, they never could have been imposed 
on his countrymen, whose religion and government 
were founded upon them. The transactions of their 
own times were narrated by the several writers of 
the other books, and the truth of their respective 

f 



OLD TESTAMENT. 



T 



histories was witnessed by all their countrymen who 
lived at the same period. The plainest directions 
were given for ascertaining the truth of the mission 
of all who declared themselves prophets, those who 
were sent being furnished with ample credentials, 
while every one who pretended to deliver the mes- 
sages of God without these credentials was to be put 
to death. Deut.xviii.20. And although false prophets 
did arise, and for a time obtained a degree of influ- 
ence, their wickedness was exposed by the failure of 
their predictions, or by the judgments inflicted on them 
as in the case of Hananiah. From the miracles, too, 
which the people of Israel constantly witnessed, as 
well as the fulfilment of the prophecies which was all 
along taking place, they had complete proof that the 
true prophets wrote by the authority of God himself. 
During the whole period from Moses to Malachi, a 
succession of them was raised up, under whose direc- 
tion the word of God was infallibly distinguished from 
all counterfeits ; and by their means, in connexion with 
the visible interference of the God of Israel in punish- 
ing those who made the people trust in a lie, the 
Scriptures were preserved pure and unadulterated. 

These books are handed down to us by that nation, 
whose history they record with an impartiality for 
which we shall seek in vain in the annals of any other 
historians. There are here no national prejudices, and 
no attempts at embellishment. The history of the 
people of Israel is recorded by the uncompromising 
hand of truth. Their ingratitude, and their obstinacy, 
are alike exposed ; their sinful incredulity on many 
occasions is published ; their virtues are not magnified, 



8 GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY. 



and their courage is not extolled. This history con- 
tains an account, not in confused traditions, but in 
minute detail of time, place, and circumstances, of 
great public facts transacted in the presence of the 
whole people, in which they were actors, and of which 
permanent memorials were instituted at the time 
when they occurred.* These facts involved their sub- 
mission to a religion entirely different from that of 
all the surrounding nations, which laid them under 
great and painful restraints, and to laws and institu- 
tions, which, while they secluded them from the rest 
of mankind, exposed them to their utmost detestation 
and contempt. Had such facts never taken place, 
they could not at any period have been forced upon 
the belief of a whole nation, so as to be ever after- 
wards acknowledged by them, without one dissent- 
ing voice. It is a striking singularity in their laws, 
that they were promulgated not from time to time, 
but in one written code, and were permanently bind- 
ing both on the rulers and the people, never to be in 
any respect either altered or added to. 



* Mr Leslie, who writes on Deism, in proving the authen- 
ticity of the books of Moses, lays down the following rules 
as a test of truth, which all meet in these books. Wherever 
they do meet, what they refer to, he affirms, cannot be false. 
On the contrary, they cannot possibly meet in any imposture 
whatever. 

" 1. That the matter of fact be such, that men's outward 
senses, their eyes and ears, may be judges of it. 

" 2. That it be done publicly in the face of the world. 

" 3. That not only public monuments be kept in memory 
of it, but some outward actions be performed. 



OLD TESTAMENT. 



9 



Nor are the Jews alone referred to as witnesses of 
some of the most important of those transactions, the 
scene of which is not laid in an obscure corner, but in 
the midst of the most civilized nations of the world. 
The entrance of their ancestors into Egypt ; their 
continuance for centuries, and increase there ; the 
manner in which they were oppressed ; the causes of 
their being suffered to depart, and the awful cata- 
strophe which accompanied that departure ; are facts 
in which the people of Egypt were equally implicated 
with themselves. Their subsequent continuance du- 
ring forty years in an uncultivated desert ; their in- 
vasion of Palestine ; the long continued contest, and 
their final occupation of that land, — were public and 
permanent facts, brought home to the inhabitants of 



" 4. That such monuments, and such actions, or obser- 
vances, be instituted, and do commence from the time that 
the matter of fact was done. 

" The two first rules make it impossible for any such mat- 
ter of fact to be imposed on men at the time when said to be 
done, because every man's eyes and senses would contradict it. 
The two last rules render it impossible that the matter of fact 
should be invented and imposed some time after." 

After proving, in a variety of ways, that all his four rules 
meet in the books of Moses, he observes : — " You may chal- 
lenge the whole world to show any action that is fabulous, 
which has all the four rules or marks before mentioned. It 
is impossible. — I do not say that every thing- which wants 
these four marks is false, but that nothing can be false which 
has them aJL n 

It is said that Dr Middleton endeavoured for twenty 
years to find out some pretended fact to which Mr Leslie's 
four rules could be applied, but without success. 



10 GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY. 

that country, who lived in the centre of the civilized 
world. The train of the history too, which, as well 
as the style and tendency of all the separate books, 
is entirely consistent with itself, proceeds in so uni- 
form a manner, and one thing so naturally rises out 
of another, that unless on the supposition of what 
goes before., that which follows cannot be accounted 
for. This remark holds good with respect to the 
state of the Jews even to this day ; and all that is 
recorded is necessary to explain their present unex- 
ampled situation. Impressed with an unalterable 
conviction of their divine origin, they have, at the ex- 
pense of every thing dear to men, tenaciously ad- 
hered, as far as circumstances permit, to the outward 
form of the religion, the laws, and the institutions en- 
grossed in their sacred records. And although they 
themselves are condemned by these books, and know 
i^lo^o) that they A are employed to support a system which 
J they mortally hate, they have, under all circumstances, 
down to the present hour, continued to be faithful de- 
positaries of the Old Testament Scriptures. 

" The honour and privilege," says Bishop Cosin, 
in his history of the Canon of the Holy Scripture, 
" which the posterity of Jacob some time had, above 
all the world besides, was to be that peculiar people 
of God, to whom he was pleased to make his laws 
and his Scriptures known ; nor was there then any 
other church but theirs, or any other oracles of God, 
than what were committed to them. For they had 
all that were then extant, and all written in their own 
language. 

" These they divided into three several classes, 



OLD TESTAMENT. 



11 



whereof the first comprehended the five books of 
Moses ; the second all the Profhets ; and the 
third those writings which they call the Chethubim, 
or books that were written by the holy men of God, 
who were not so properly to be ranked among the 
Prophets : From whom both the Jive Books of Mo- 
ses and these Chethubim were distinguished, because ^ 
howsoever they were all written by the same propheti- ^ 
cal spirit and instinct ^ which the Books of the Prophets 
were ; yet Moses having been their special lawgiver, 
and the writers of these other books having had no 
public mission or office of Prophets, (for some of them 
were Kings, and others were great and potent persons 
in their times,) they gave either of them a peculiar 
class by themselves. 

iC In this division as they reckoned Five Books in 
the first class, so in the second, they counted Eight, 
and in the third Nine ; Two and Twenty in all ; in 
number equal to the letters of their Alphabet, and as 
fully comprehending all that was then needful to be 
known and believed, as the number of their letters 
did all that was requisite to be said or written. And 
hereof after this manner they made their enumeration. 





Numbers, 
Deuteronomy, 
Joshua, 



Four books of the 
former Prophets 



Samuel, 1. and 2. 
Kings, I. and 2. 
Isaiah, 




]► VIIL 



Four books of the 
> latter Prophets 



12 GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY. 



And the rest of the ^ 
Holy Writers 



King David's Psalter, S 
King Solomon's Proverbs, [ 
His book of the Preacher, } 
His Song of Songs, I 
The book of Job, )> 
The book of Daniel, j 
The books of Ezra and Nehemiah, J 
The book of Esther, * 
s The book of Chronicles, 1. and 2. J 



XXII. 

" Which last Book of the Chronicles ', containing 
the sum of all their former histories, and reaching 
from the creation of the world to their return from 
Babylon, is a perfect epitome of all the Old Testa- 
ment, and therefore not unfitly so placed by them, as 
that it concluded and closed up their whole bible." 

" Other divisions of these books were afterwards 
made, and the order of them was somewhat altered, 
(as in divers respects they may well be,) but the 
books were still the same; and as the number of 
them was never augmented, during the time of the 
Old Testament, so there were no additional pieces 
brought in, or set to any of them at all." 

" It is generally received, that after the return of 
the Jews from their captivity in Babylon, all the 
books of the Scripture, having been revised by 
Ezra, (then their priest and their leader,) who di- 
gested them likewise into those several classes before 
rehearsed, were by him, and the Prophets of God 
that lived with him, consigned and delivered over to 
all posterity. But this is sure, that after his age, and 
the time of the prophet Malachi, (who was one among 
those that prophesied in that time,) there were- no 
more prophets heard of among the Jews till the time 



OLD TESTAMENT. 



13 



of St John the Baptist, and therefore no more pro- 
phetical and divine Scriptures between them." 

' ; The books then of the old testament, such 
and so many as they were after the captivity of Ba- 
bylon, in the time of Esdras, (Ezra,) the same and 
so many being accurately preserved by the Jews, and 
containing among' them unto the time of our blessed 
Saviour | as they do likewise still unto this very day) 
without any addition, imminution, or alteration, de- 
scended to the Christians." 

Nothing then can be better authenticated than the 
canon* of the Old Testament, as we now possess it. 
We have the fullest evidence that it was fixed 280 
years before the Christian era, when, as has been no- 
ticed, the Greek translation, called the Septuagint, was 
executed at Alexandria, the books of which were the 
same as in our Bible. And as no authentic records of a 
more ancient date are extant, it is impossible to ascend 
hio-her in search of testimony. As held by the Jews in 
the days of Jesus Christ, their canon was the same a& 
when that translation was made, and it has since then 
been retained by them without any variation, though 
by separating books formerly united, they increase 
their number. The integrity and divine original of 
these Scriptures are thus authenticated by a whole 
nation. — the most ancient that exists. — who have pre- 
served them and borne their testimony to them from 



* The word canon signifies a rule or a law. Hence the 
br.uk- of the Holy Scriptures taken together are called the ca- 
non, as designed by God to be the rule of our faith and prac- 
tice. 



14 GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY, 

the time of Moses down to the present day. That 
nation was selected by God himself to be his wit- 
nesses, Isaiah, xliii. 10., to whom he committed " the 
lively oracles," and amidst all their wickedness he 
prevented them from betraying their trust, the Jews 
never having given admission into their canon to any 
other books but to those which by his prophets and 
servants were delivered to them. 

In addition to the unanimous testimony of the 
Jewish nation to the genuineness and authenticity of 
the Old Testament Scriptures, of which they had 
been constituted the depositaries, we have the deci- 
sive attestation of the Son of God. Jesus Christ, 
who appeared on earth 1500 years after Moses, the 
first of the prophets, and 400 years after Malachi, the 
last of them, bore his testimony to the sacred canon 
as held by the Jews in his time, and recorded it by 
his holy Apostles. Among all the evils with which 
he charged the Jews, he never once intimated that 
they had in any degree corrupted the canon either by 
addition, or diminution, or alteration. Since with so 
much zeal he purged the Temple, and so often and 
sharply reprehended the Jews for perverting the true 
sense of the Scriptures, much more, we may be assu- 
red, would he have condemned them, if they had tam- 
pered with, or vitiated, these sacred writings ; but of 
this, he never accused them. By often referring to the 
" Scriptures," which he declared " cannot be broken," 
the Lord Jesus Christ has given his full attestation to 
the whole of them as the unadulterated word of God. 
" Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have 



I 



OLD TESTAMENT. 



15 



eternal life, and they are they which testify of ??ie." 
Here he warrants, in the most explicit manner, the 
canon of the Hebrew Scriptures. He told the Jews ^ : y 
that they made the word of God of none effect through - '« h ^ & 
their traditions^ By calling them the word of God, fu uc^% 
he indicated that these Scriptures proceeded from God u&rU 4* 
himself. In his conversation with the disciples going 
to Emaus, when, " beginning at Moses and all the ^T^y^jf/f 
Prophets, he expounded to them in all the Scriptures , .~ , . ^ -__; 5 . 
the things concerning himself" he gave the most ex- 
press testimony to every one of the books of the .Old 
Testament canon. Just before his ascension, he said 
to his Apostles, u These are theicords which I spake 
unto you while I was yet with you, that cdl things^' \u o ^u-j- 
must be fulfilled which were written in the law of t rf*- U/t *g ^fa**^ 
Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms, con- ^j^^.^J.-^ 
cerning me." By thus adopting the common division ffff^a^ %Jtofa 
of the Law, and the^PnnDhets, and the Psalms, which ^p^,^ j^. u \ 
compreh ejnded^all the Hebi^w_Scriptures, (to which 
division Josephus, as we have seen, refers^) he ratified ojo^-V^.^,^ 
and sanctioned with his authority the canon of the tr ?^ Kl5 : ln ' f j 
Old Testament, as it was received by the Jews ; and fa*. VJkJ>w*! 
by declaring that these books contained prophecies ^4^_^^^ 
which must be fulfilled, he established their divine^^f^ ^ . , 
inspiration, since God alone can enable men toJor&Z^ dej-Jot^ u 
tell future events^ \^ t £iZu£& 

The same testimony is repeatetHrjy the Apostles, r / j C ***** **4lo* 
who constantly appeal to-the Jewish Scriptures as C4 ^ { :< 
" the lively oracle£^<S{ God. Referring to the whole . ~V L<y j 
of the OlplTestament, Paul declares, that "All Scrip- 
ture^is given by inspiration of God" The term 

SfL<L±+ A*. U-e^e^<^c^f ^ dc-z^Cet^l^ * ^£*fu~ *~» % (fO/t , e^Sd ^bo* usfu'b 
/try C^sC.< tsf~ *S Uvim.^yi <£^£ ." e,'Yc"~ fjlc^J* 4*uA, £<r*o/i,) f£c 

Ji&i f- cff t^C-4 CSi^/i- &v~T*- h: £#*^J<I cri< £g /-a AlL fs £<-<3 *~ l/f~li cn 'iX-Csu4~ 



16 GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY. 



" Scripture," or " the Scriptures," (the writings,) was 
then, as it is still, appropriated to the written word 
of God, as both the Old Testament and the New are 
now, by way of eminence and distinction, called the 
Bible, or the Book. The same Apostle recognises the 
entire canon of the Jews, when he says, " unto them 
were committed the oracles of God. 71 The fidelity of 
the Jews to their trust is here asserted by Paul ; and 
those to whom he writes are required to acknowledge 
the Scriptures of the Old Testament as of divine au- 
thority. While the Apostles affirmed that they spoke 
" not the words which mans ivisdom teacheth, but 
which the Holy Ghost teacheth" they uniformly re- 
ferred to the Old Testament Scriptures, as of equal 
authority with those of the New Testament, both of 
which, as commissioned by their divine master, they 
have delivered over to the Christian Church as " the 
word of God." Indeed, so manifestly is it the object 
of the Apostles to establish the divine authority of the 
Old Testament, that though they were as fully inspi- 
red and accredited as the ancient prophets, or former 
servants of God, and could establish the truth of any 
thing they taught by the miracles which they per- 
formed, yet they reasoned out of the Old Testament 
Scriptures, proving and alleging from them the truth 
of what they declared. Instead of professing to give 
authority to what was written in them, they uniform- 
ly appealed to those writings as authority equal to 
their own.^ Paul declares, that the Gospel of God, 
to which he was separated as an Apostle, was that 
" which he had promised afore by his prophets in the 

.&U-A<^v/- /o%- pJL.-<Lpi+.c<^- c^c^J'fvtnrt^ d^p£c btrilo f+tsx*^ £lisisi<t C*s-z^y y t^f C? 

A~sh*? & Ctf pb^^T&c^ < £Ci^c tUyvf~, £Hst< / e> ^d*J> . ^^a/-,./' /^^^ ^W-to 



OLD TESTAMENT. 



Holy Scriptures!' — Rom. 1, 2.* Here, where Paul 
asserts his Apostolic commission, he gives the whole 
weight of his Apostolic authority to the ancient Scrip- 
tures, which he denominates " Holy writings," in 
which God, he affirms, had recorded his promises by 
his prophets. When the same Apostle declares, that 
<; whatsoever things were written afore time were 



* Much important matter is contained in this verse. The 
Apostle here tacitly repels the accusation of the Jews, that 
the Gospel was a novel doctrine. He shows that the Old 
Testament is the promise of the New, and that the New is 
the fulfilment of the Old — by its prophecies which foretold 
a new covenant — by all that it promised concerning the Mes- 
siah — by all its legal institutions which contained in them- 
selves the promises which they prefigured — by the whole eco- 
nomy of the law which prepared men for the reception of the 
Gospel — by all the revelations of grace and mercy which con- 
tained the Gospel in substance, and, consequently, promised 
its more full developement. He also repels the accusation, 
that the Apostles were enemies to Moses and the Prophets ; 
showing, on the other hand, that there was a complete agree- 
ment betwixt them. He establishes the authority of the 
Prophets and the inspiration of the Scriptures, by declaring 
that it was God himself who spoke in them. He shows 
whence we are to take the true word of God and of his pro- 
phets, not from verbal tradition, which must be uncertain 
and fluctuating, but from the written word which is certain 
and permanent. He teaches that we ought constantly to 
have recourse to the Scriptures, for that all in religion which 
is not found in them, is really novel, although it may have 
been received for many ages ; but that wh at is found there is 
really ancient, although men ma y have for a long time lost eyief' 
sight of it. Such are the great truths contained in this com- 
pendious verse. 

/o /Ac 

Ct~<^~0 C<^ 6t^L.-C*l f a£i sL- t^Lt- / C-tcj //Lc*cAs &Alm~ 



18 



GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY. 



^ k*f.t~foe<f'written for our learning ; that we, through patience 
rfi^^^and comfort of the Scriptures, might have hope," he 
•juifCtj/-^ gives his attestation to the whole of the sacred wri- 
^2^^ tings, and proves that they exist entire ; for he could 
VK&t&rjd: not nave sa id this if any of them had been lost, or had 
C fr&e/^ any additions been made to them.* 
:/£v^tr 1 ' From the important connexion that subsists be- 
<t-<^ te-^s tween the Old Testament and the New, the early 
f^/^rir Christian writers carefully examined the Jewish Scrip- 
^£ty/; tures, and have given distinct catalogues of these 
books, precisely the same as we now receive, and as 
they are still retained by the Jews. Melito, bishop 



* It is true, that the sacred writers refer to other books 
that do not now exist, as of Iddo the seer ; but they do not 
refer to them as canonical books, but as civil records of the 
kingdom, such as the reference to the civil records of Persia 
in the book of Esther. Were it even to be admitted that 
some epistles written by the Apostles have not come down to 
us, the fact would not imply that the Scriptures have lost an 
epistle, or a single word. There might have been hundreds 
of such inspired letters from the Apostles, without implying 
that ever they made a part of that collection that was designed 
by God to be a perfect and sufficient standard to all ages. This 
is said not from a conviction that there ever existed any inspi- 
red letters of the Apostles except those which we possess,* 
but they may have existed in any number, without affecting 
the integrity of the canon, which some have weakly supposed 
would follow from the fact, if admitted. 

* " Some," says Theodoret, " imagine Paul to have wrote an epistle to 
the Laodiceans, and accordingly produce a certain forged epistle (so en- 
titled) ; but the holy Apostle does not say t>jv <zrgo$ Ae&otiixBtas, the epistle 
to the Laodiceans, but tvv bk Aaofoxsias, the epistle from the Laodi- 
ceans." 

J2,S fc/p. ^ J lj. 8 ~ 2. 22. •AoJ- face, 

cry "tf&^fiL J^i£. £ t^l/* £(sorLe> ; (rzte. e~wt*sis*z^/n*n!^xf " t '/~ t^t **n?rv&&&£<~ " C^oct^> 



OLD TESTAMENT. 



19 



of Sardis, travelled in the second century into Pa- 
lestine, on purpose to investigate the subject. His 
catalogue, which is preserved by Eusebius, contains 
the canonical books of the Old Testament, and no 
more. He names the several books, comprehending 
under the Book of Ezra, those of Nehemiah and Est- 
her, to which they were commonly annexed, these 
three being by many accounted but one book. In the 
Jewish list, the Book of Nehemiah, only, was joined to 
Esther, as the Book of Lamentations was also annexed 
to Jeremiah ; but the Book of Esther was never want- 
ing in the canon of the Jews. The learned Origen, 
in the third century, gives a catalogue of the Jewish 
Scriptures, and says, " that the canonical books of 
Scripture contained in the Old Testament, are twenty 
and two in number, which the Hebrews have left 
unto us, according to the number of letters which 
they have in their alphabet." Athanasius also, in the 
fourth century, specifies the twenty-two books, and, 
naming them one after another, in the same order in 
which they now stand, says, that " they are received 
by the whole church." Hilary of Poictiers, and many 
writers in the same century, affirm that these books 
alone were received as canonical. This fact is con- 
firmed by the Council of Laodicea, which met in the 
year 363, and gave a list of the twenty-two books, 
the same as have been received both by Jews and 
Christians. 

Nothing can be more satisfactoiy and conclusive 
than all the parts of the foregoing evidence of the 
authenticity and integrity of the Canon of the Old 
Testament Scriptures. The Jews, to whom they 



20 GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY. 

were first committed, never varied respecting them ; 
while they have been fully recognised by the Lord and 
his Apostles, and consequently, their authenticity is 
established by express revelation. And that we now 
possess them as thus delivered and authenticated, we 
have the concurrent testimony of the whole succes- 
sion of the most distinguished early Christian writers, 
as well as of the Jews to this day, who, in every age, 
and in all countries, the most remote from one an- 
other, have constantly been in use of reading them in 
their synagogues. 

The Scriptures of the Old Testament that have 
been thus so faithfully preserved, and so fully attest- 
ed, contain the most satisfactory and convincing in- 
ternal evidences of their truth. The character of 
God which they exhibit, nowhere delineated in the 
writings of any of the wisest of this world unen- 
lightened by revelation, is such as carries with it its 
own confirmation. The character they give of man 
is verified in the history of every nation, and of each 
individual. The majesty, purity, and suitableness to 
the condition of man, of the doctrine they contain — 
the soundness and unrivalled excellence of the moral 
precepts they inculcate, and the glory of the succeed- 
ing dispensation which, towards their close, they point 
out with increasing clearness ; and all this confirmed 
and verified in the minutest particulars by the New 
Testament Scriptures — form a body of internal evi- 
dence, to which nothing but the deep corruption of 
the human heart, and the enmity of the carnal mind 
against God, could render any one insensible. 

In course of time, and in the progress of that cor- 



OLD TESTAMENT. 



21 



ruption in the churches which soon began to work, 
the sacred canon was denied by the addition and even 
intermixture of other books, which, through the un- 
faithfulness of Christians, were admitted first as of 
secondary, and at length by many as of equal autho- 
rity and consideration with those of which it was 
composed. 

These books were called Apocryphal, and are sup- 
posed to have been so denominated from the Greek 
word a7F03C£v7TTa, to hide — to conceal, which is expres- 
sive of the uncertainty and concealed nature of their 
origin. Who their authors were is not known. They 
were written subsequently to the cessation of the pro- 
phetic spirit in the time of Malachi, who closed his 
testimony by reminding the people of Israel of the 
authority of the law of Moses, and intimating that after 
himself, no prophet was to arise until the harbinger of 
the Messiah should appear. They were not written in 
the Hebrew language, in which all the books of the 
Old Testament were originally composed, with the ex- 
ception of a few passages in Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezra, 
and Esther, which were written in Chaldee. Both 
Philo and Josephus, who flourished in the first cen- 
tury of the Christian era, are altogether silent concern- 
ing these spurious books, which were not contained in 
the Septuagint version, as set forth by the translators 
under Ptolemy:* and they form no part of those 



* " Of the Greek Septuagint Bible, (as it was first set 
forth in the time of Ptolemseus Philadelphus,) St Augustin 
acknowledged no more Books, than what were then translated 
out of the Hebrew copies sent from Jerusalem, where neither 



22 GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY. 



aelT* | Sacrec * wr ^iPg s committed by God to the Jews, uni- 
L • * ovk * iA Yersa ^y acknowledged and preserved by them entire. 
^y<JU <L Above a ^> tne y nave not received, like these holy 
■it,(kwi.Or wrings, the attestation of Jesus Christ, and his 
, J\-£w or Apostles, placing upon them the broad seal of heaven, 
'qauu. lo-ftu, who have never once quoted them.^ A real and es- 
^^mA,o^ sential difference was constantly maintained by the 
ujc^tiwui- early Christians between them and the canonical 
Ctfwl ^cd books ; and it was not till the fourth century, when 
l°/ LHUtd ^ the churches had become exceedingly corrupt both in 
ilZ i anc ^ P ract i ce 5 tnat tne y came to be permitted to 

u*L ^TlC ji a PP ear w * tn tne canon. 

^ '^ De Apocryphal books, though not admitted by 

^ the first Christian writers, or churches, to have any 

authority in matters of faith, yet claim for them- 
selves that authority, and even arrogate an equality 
with the sacred Scriptures, to which they were at 
length advanced by the church of Rome. They pre- 
sent themselves to the world as a part of the word 
of God, sometimes communicated immediately by 
himself, sometimes conveyed through the medium of 
angels, who are represented as standing before him. 



Tobit nor Judith, nor any of that class, were to be found ; for, 
(whatever Genebrard saith of his own head to the contrary,) 
those additional writings were brought in afterwards, and used 
only by the Hellenist Jews abroad at Babylon and Alexandria, 
from whom they were, in time following, commended to be 
read by the Christians, but never made equal with the other 
sacred Scriptures, as they are now set forth in the Roman 
Septuagint by the authority of Sixtus Quintus, which is an 
edition of that Bible, many ways depraved." — Cosin, p. 98. 



OLD TESTAMENT. 



The claim to inspiration is not more explicitly asserted 
by the writers of the Scriptures, than by some of the 
authors of the Apocryphal books. No higher demand 
for attention to their messages can be made by holy 
prophets and apostles, than when they affirm, f< Thus 
saith the Lord." Yet this is the language in which 
men are addressed by these authors. They " have 
daubed them with untempered mortar, seeing vanity, 
and divining lies unto them, saying, Thus saith 
the Lord God, when the Lord hath not spoken" 
Ezek. xxii. 28. 

In the second book of Esdras, the writer having 
commenced by declaring his lineage, affirms, " The 
word of the Lord came unto me, saying, Go thy way 
and show my people/' &c. " Speak thou therefore 
unto them, saying, Thus saith the Lord." — " Thus 
saith the Almighty Lord" This expression occurs four 
times in the first chapter. The second chapter opens 
with " Thus saith the Lord" which in the course of 
that chapter is repeated nine times ; and an angel is 
represented as speaking to the writer — " Then the 
angel said unto me, go thy way, and tell my people 
what manner of things, and how great wonders of 
the Lord thy God thou hast seen." The rest of the 
book proceeds in the same strain, the author conti- 
nuing to recite divine communications, made to him- 
self as they had been to Moses. 

In the book of Baruch, ii. 21, it is written, " Thus 
saith the Lord" 

In the book of Tobit a long interview with an an- 
gel is related, who affirms that he is one of the holy 
angels who go in and out before the glory of the 



24 GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY. 

Holy One. " Now, therefore," says this angel, " give 
God thanks, for I go up to him that sent me, but write 
all things which are done in a book." Tobit, xii. 15. 20. 
God himself is often introduced by the Apocryphal 
writers, as communicating his will to them, and long 
speeches are ascribed to him.* Thus, the writers of 
the Apocrypha come as the bearers of messages from 
God, and as such they deliver them to mankind. 
They profess to communicate a portion of spiritual 
light, not borrowed from the Holy Scriptures, but 
immediately derived from the source of light. In 
every sense of the word, these books present them- 
selves as a part of Divine Revelation, and if they 
were what they pretend to be, would be entitled to 
equal attention and reverence with the Holy Scrip- 
tures. Here, then, there is no medium, and the con- 
clusion is inevitable : — The Apocrypha is either an 
addition made to the Old Testament Scriptures by 
God himself, or it is the work of lying prophets. 
This important question ought, therefore, to be con- 
sidered by every Christian, and happily its solution is 
attended with no difficulty. 

The Hebrew Scriptures come to us, as we have seen, 
with the fullest and most unequivocal attestations, that 
they are the oracles of God. On the other hand, if we 
examine the claim of the Apocryphal books, what do 
we observe ? External evidence of their constituting a 



* The absurd, unintelligible speeches, replete with trifling 
nonsense, ascribed to God in different places, prove the Apo- 
crypha to be not only a human, but a most impious com- 
position. 



OLD TESTAMENT. 



25 



portion of divine revelation they have none. The 
question, then, is, on this ground alone, even were 
there no other to which we could appeal, for ever de- 
cided against them. But in order to produce the 
fullest conviction in the minds of all who know the 
truth as it is in Jesus, and to exclude every doubt, 
let us call another witness. We shall appeal, then, to 
the internal evidence of these writings. They contain 
within themselves their own condemnation. They 
are inconsistent, absurd, and contrary to the Word of 
God. 

Viewing the Apocryphal writings as standing by 
the side of the Holy Scriptures, what character do 
they present ? Do they offer any thing new, any 
thing that it might be of importance to know beyond 
what is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and 
New Testament ? Do they teach us the way of 
God more perfectly ? This will not be pretended by 
any one. Do their histories, which they present to 
us as true, comport with the dignity of holy writ ? 
Do they possess internal marks of being authentic ? 
Do they bear the character of a revelation from God, 
given for our instruction ? So far is this from being 
the case, that many of their narrations are incredible 
and self-contradictory, and others irreconcilably at va- 
riance with the canonical Scriptures. They are de- 
filed with a variety of errors, vanities, low conceits, 
and other faults incident to human nature and human 
infirmity. W T hile their style, far different from the 
grave and chaste simplicity, or the divine and spirit- 
ual majesty, of the pure genuine word of God, is de- 



26 GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY, 

formed with levity, and affectation of worldly wisdom 
and eloquence. 

The Apocryphal books are not only replete with 
absurdities, superstitions, and falsehoods, in their 
narrations, but also with false doctrines directly op- 
posed to the doctrine of the Holy Scriptures, such as 
those of purgatory and prayers for the dead. But 
waving for the present every other charge on this 
head against them, let us turn our attention to a sin- 
gle point of the last importance, which involves an 
answer to that most momentous of all questions. 
How shall man be just before God? The Scriptures 
assure us, that if any man denies the doctrine of jus- 
tification by faith without works, he becomes a debt- 
or to do the whole law. What judgment then are 
we bound to form of a book which, openly contra- 
dicting this fundamental doctrine, and exhibiting an- 
other way of acceptance with God, makes void the 
whole plan of redemption ? On this one point, then, 
of the explicit contravention by the Apocryphal books 
of the grand Scripture doctrine of justification, let 
them be tried ; — that doctrine which is peculiar to 
the Christian religion, and unknown to every false 
one, which so remarkably illustrates and honours the 
finished work of the Redeemer — that doctrine of 
which God in his word has affirmed, that the man 
who perverts it, Christ shall profit him nothing. 

It is written in the Apocrypha, " Whoso honour etk 
his father maketh an atonement for his sins /' and 
again, i£ Water will quench a flaming fire, and alms 
maketh an atonement for sins." Eccl. iii. 3-30. 
Sentiments more directly opposed to the doctrine of 



OLD TESTAMENT. 



21 



the Holy Scriptures, more dishonourable to God, 
more contrary to his holiness, more derogatory to his 
justice, or more fraught with mortal poison, and more 
destructive to the souls of men, cannot be imagined. 

The apostle Paul solemnly declared to the churches 
of Galatia, that if an angel from heaven should preach 
any other gospel than that which he had preached 
unto them, he should be accursed. That very occur- 
rence which the apostle here supposes, has, accord- 
ing to the Apocrypha, been realised. An angel from 
heaven, it affirms, has descended and declared .that 
he came from God. " / am Raphael, one of the 
seven holy angels, which present the prayers of the 
saints, and which go in and out before the glory of 
the Holy One ; — not of any favour of mine, but by 
the will of our God I came!' Tobit, xii. 15, 18. And 
that very doctrine does this angel explicitly contra- 
dict which the apostle so earnestly inculcated, accom- 
panied with the solemn asseveration, that the curse 
of God should rest on any creature who dared to per- 
vert it. " It is better" says this angel, " to give 
alms than to lay up gold : for alms doth deliver from 
death, and shall purge away all sin" Tobit, xii. 8, 9. 
If the man or angel who shall preach another gos- 
pel than that which the Bible contains, is pronounced 
by the Holy Ghost to be accursed, then must this 
awful denunciation apply to a book, which, pretend- 
ing to record the message of an angel from heaven, 
teaches another gospel. On the Apocrypha, there- 
fore, does this anathema rest. 

The writers, then, of the Apocryphal books, who 
tread down the pastures, and foul the residue of the 



28 GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY. 

waters with their feet, (Ezek. xxxiv. 18,) are, by con- 
fronting their doctrine with that of the holy Apostles, 
proved to be false prophets, against whom the wrath 
of God and many woes are denounced in Scripture. 
In opposition to their folly and wickedness, the Lord 
says, ie The prophet that hath a dream, let him tell a 
dream; and he that hath my word, let him speak my 
word faithfully. What is the chaff' to the wheat? 
saith the Lord. Is not my word like as a fire ? saith 
the Lord ; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock 
in pieces ? " Jer. xxii. 28. " The prophet, zvhich shall 
presume to speak a word in my name, which 1 have 
not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in 
the name of other Gods, even that prophet shall die," 
Deut. xviii. 20. These, and many other passages, are 
pointedly applicable to the Apocrypha. The writers 
of it may be justly termed prophets of deceit, and of 
their own heart, that prophesy lies in the name of the 
Lord, " saying, I have dreamed, I have dreamed?' 
Jer. xxiii. 25. They have indeed imitated the style 
of the Scriptures, like the impostors concerning whom 
it is written, " Therefore, behold, I am against the 
prophets, saith the Lord, that steal my words every 
one from his neighbour. Behold, I am against the 
prophets, saith the Lord, that use their tongues, and 
say, He saith. Behold, I am against them that pro- 
phesy false dreams, saith the Lord, and do tell them 9 
and cause my people to err by their lies, and by their 
lightness ; yet I sent them not, nor commanded them : 
therefore they shall not profit this people at all, saith 
the Lord!' Jer. xxiii. 30. " Thus saith the Lord God; 
Woe unto the foolish prophets^ that follow their own 



OLD TESTAMENT. 



29 



spirit, and have seen nothing ! — Have ye not seen d 
vain vision, and have ye not spoken a lying divina- 
tion, whereas ye say, The Lord saith it ; albeit I have 
not spoken ? Therefore, thus saith the Lord God ; 
Because ye have spoken vanity, and seen lies, there- 
fore, behold, I am against you, saith the Lord God. 
And mine hand shall be upon the prophets that see 
vanity, and that divine lies!' Ezek. xiii. 3, 7, 9. The 
Bible then, and the Apocrypha, stand in direct oppo- 
sition in their doctrine, and the latter is denounced 
by the former, and lies under its heaviest anathemas. 
The Apocryphal books, when delivered to the people 
as part of the divine oracles, are calculated by their 
absurdities to make men Deists or Atheists rather 
than Christians, and by their false doctrines to cause 
their readers to wrest the Scriptures to their own de- 
struction. As their introduction into the sacred canon 
has been the grand and crowning device of Satan for 
deceiving and corrupting the Christian world, and sup- 
porting the claims of the mother of harlots and abo- 
minations of the earth, it will be proper to trace it 
from its origin. 

Although all the Apocryphal books had been call- 
ed, by the first Christian writers, spurious and sup- 
posititious, as not being inspired, but, on the contrary, 
containing doctrines which subvert the very founda- 
tions of the Gospel, and of a sinner's acceptance be- 
fore God ; yet some of them were at length selected as 
being supposed to be purer than the rest, and better 
entitled to be used in public readings and services, 
and on this account they received the name of Eccle- 
siastical or Church books. Of these there was even 



30 GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY. 



formed a register or inferior canon, to exclude such 
as were reckoned more erroneous or faulty ; and this, 
in process of time, occasioned the name of canonical 
to be given in common to the writings which were 
truly divine, and to those which were reckoned the 
best of the Apocryphal books. The books of the 
first canon were esteemed to be divinely inspired, and 
to be the certain rule of faith. The Apocryphal books 
I f were reckoned to be instructive and useful, but were 
^J^J^^excluded from all authority in matters of faith, and in 
^ t u. I ^termination °f controversies ; and when they came 
^^^'c^ui^ De P erm itted to be read in the churches, the reader 
f <-fi**'LU,-Ci ^£ t0 °d U P m an inferior place.* It happened, however, 
J^^^^in the course of years, that all these Canonical and 
*f tL. oct.cdu^ Apocryphal books were conjoined and bound up toge- 
IjL. Iju^iPU ther in one volume, for the greater facility of ecclesias- 
>^^/X^^^tical use ; and for the purpose of uniting the historical 
parts with the historical, the proverbial with the pro- 
verbial, the doctrinal with the doctrinal, they were 
intermingled with one another, as at present in the 
Roman Catholic Bibles. But this practice obtained 
no sanction from the primitive churches, or the best 
and earliest of the Christian fathers, who, on the con- 
trary, strongly objected against it ; and denied that 



* Augustine, who lived in the fifth century, relates, that 
when the Book of Wisdom, and other writings of the same 
class, were publicly read in the church, they were given to 
the readers or inferior ecclesiastical officers, who read them 
in a place lower than that in which those universally acknow- 
ledged to he the canonical, were read by the bishops and presby- 
ters in a more eminent and conspicuous manner. 



OLD TESTAMENT. 



31 



these books were possessed of any authority. At- 
the beginning, they were not acknowledged at all, 
nor admitted into any of the earlier catalogues of the 
Scriptures, and their introduction to that place which 
they afterwards unlawfully usurped, was slow and 
partial. 

Justin,* who suffered martyrdom for the Christian 
faith, in the year 163, never, in any of his writings, cites 
a single passage of the Apocryphal books, nor makes 
the least mention of them in his conference with Try- 
pho ; while he speaks of it as a special work of Divine 
Providence, that the Jews had been faithful preservers 
of the Scriptures. None of these books appear in the 
catalogue of the Old Testament Scriptures of Melito, 
Bishop of Sardis, in the second century ; nor in that 
of Origen, in the third century. 

In the fourth century, Eusebius, who was Bishop 
of Csesarea in the year 320, affirms,, that from the 
time of Jesus Christ, there were no sacred books of 
Holy Scripture, besides those which had been re- 
ceived into the canon of the Jewish and Christian 
churches. He had read the Apocryphal books, and 
makes frequent quotations from them as the writings 
of particular authors, but never acknowledges any of 
them as a part of the canonical Scriptures. He de- 
clares that the authors of those books which bear the 
names of the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom 
of the Son of Siracb, are writers contradicted, or not 



* For a particular account of the writings of the early 
Christians, quoted in the following pages, see Lardner's works, 
where they will be found in their order. 



32 GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY. 

allowed, in the canon. When Porphyry adduced some 
objections against him from the new pieces annexed 
to the book of Daniel, he said that he was not bound 
to defend them, because they had no authority of Holy 
Scripture. 

In the year 325, the first general council was held 
at Nice, at which were present 318 bishops, besides 
multitudes of other Christians, from all the provinces 
and churches of the Roman Empire. That in the 
Scriptures they made use of, " there were none of 
the controverted books, appears," says Bishop Cosin, 
p. 42, " by the evidence and attestation which both 
the Emperor, Eusebius, and Athanasius, (the chiefest 
actors in this council,) have hereunto given us/' 

Athanasius, who flourished in the year 340, enu- 
merates the books of the Old and New Testament 
precisely as we now have them, and asserts that these 
alone are to be accounted the canonical and authentic 
sacred writings, admitted by the Lord and his Apos- 
tles, and recognised by all the fathers and teachers 
of the church since the Apostolic age. At the same 
time he reproves those who had intermixed a number 
of the Apocryphal books with the catalogue of the 
acknowledged books of the Old Testament. 

" These things," says Cyril, who was Bishop of 
Jerusalem in the year 350, '" we are taught by the 
divinely-inspired Scriptures of the Old and New Tes- 
tament. For there is one God of both Testaments, 
who in the Old Testament foretold the Christ, who 
was manifested in the New. — Read the Divine Scrip- 
tures, the two- and- twenty books of the Old Testa- 
ment,, which were translated by the seventy- two 
2 



OLD TESTAMENT. 



33 



interpreters — Read these two-and-twenty books, 
and have nothing to do with Apocryphal writings. 
These, and these only, do you carefully meditate 
upon, which we securely or openly read in the church. 
The Apostles and ancient bishops, governors of the 
church, who have delivered them to us, were wiser 
and holier men than thou. As a son of the church, 
therefore, transgress not these bounds : meditate upon 
the books of the Old Testament, which, as has been 
already said, are two-and-twenty ; and if you are 
desirous to learn, fix them in your memory, as I enu- 
merate them, one by one." The list of these books 
Cyril subjoins ; it is precisely the same as the Jewish 
canon which we receive.* 

The council of Laodicea, which met in the year 363, 
prohibited the public reading of any books as sacred 
or inspired, except the canonical. In their 59th 
canon, it is declared, " that private psalms ought not 
to be read (or said) in the church, nor any books 



* " — although both he (Cyril) at Jerusalem, and Athanasius 
at Alexandria, together with other churches, had not the use 
of the Hebrew Bible among them, hut kept themselves only 
to the Greek translation of the LXX., whereunto were af- 
terwards commonly added those ecclesiastical books which 
the Hellenist Jews first introduced, and received into their 
churches, that so all the most eminent books of religion writ- 
ten in the Greek tongue before Christ's time might be put 
together and contained in one volume ; yet nevertheless thev 
were always careful to preserve the honour of the Hebrew 
canon, which consisted of XXII. books only, divinely inspired ; 
and accurately to distinguish them from the rest, which had 
but ecclesiastical authority ;" — Cosin, p. 54*. 

C 



34 GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY. 



not canonical, but only the canonical books of the 
Old and New Testament." 

" The Hebrews/' says Jerom, who was ordained 
presbyter of Antioch about the year 378, " have two- 
and- twenty letters, and they have as many books of 
divine doctrine, for the instruction of mankind." He 
next gives a list of these books, and then adds, " This 
prologue I write as a preface to all the books to be 
translated by me from the Hebrew into Latin, that 
we may know that all the books that are not of this 
number, are to be reckoned Apocryphal. There- 
fore Wisdom, which is commonly called Solomon's, 
and the book of Jesus the Son of Sirach, and Judith, 
and Tobit, and the Shepherd, are not in the canon." 
In his Latin translation, called the Vulgate, Jerom 
intermingled the Apocryphal and inspired writings, 
but to prevent mistake, he prefixed to each book a 
short notice, in which the reader was distinctly in- 
formed of its character, and apprized that the Apo- 
cryphal writings were not in the canon of Scripture. 
He says, that to meet the prejudices of the ignorant, 
he retained these " fables," which, though not in the 
Hebrew, were widely dispersed ; but he adds, that 
according to his custom, he had marked these Apo- 
cryphal intruders with a spit or dagger placed hori- 
zontally for the purpose of stabbing them.* In his 



* After the third verse of the tenth chapter of Esther, where 
the Apocryphal addition to that book commences, Jerom has 
inserted the following notice ; it is the ancient Vulgate to 
which he refers, which was the most common version of his 
time; — " Quse hahentur in Hebrseo, plena fide expressi. Hsec 



OLD TESTAMENT. 



35 



letter to Lseta, written about the year 398, giving 
her instructions concerning her daughter Paula, he ad- 
vises that she should read the Scriptures, and in this 
order : first the Psalms, next the Proverbs, the Acts, 
and the Epistles of the Apostles. Afterwards she 
may reac: the Prophets, the Pentateuch, the Kings and 
Chronicles, but no Apocryphal books ; or, if she does, 
she should first, by way of caution, be informed of 
their true character. Jerom speaks of the fables of Bel 
and the Dragon, and says that the Apocryphal books 
do not belong to those whose names they bear, and 
that they contain several forgeries. In all his works, 
he explicitly maintains the distinction between canon- 
ical and Apocryphal books. " The latter," he says, 
" the church does not receive among canonical Scrip- 
tures ; they may be read for edification of the people, 
but are not to be esteemed of authority for proving 
any doctrine of religion." His canon of the Old Tes- 
tament was precisely that of the Jews ; and though 
he and other ancient Christian writers sometimes 
quote the Apocryphal books, by way of illustration, 
as they also do Heathen writings, yet they had a 
supreme regard for the Jewish canon, consisting of 
those books which were received by the Jewish people 
as sacred and divine. 

Epiphanius, Bishop of Constantia, in the island of 



autem, quse sequuntur, scripta reperi in editione vulgata, qua? 
Grsecorum lingua et literis continentur : et interim post finem 
libri hoc capitulum ferebatur : quod juxta consuetudinem 
nostram obelo, id est veru, prsenotavimus." 



36 GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY. 

Cyprus, who wrote in the year 392, has thrice enu- 
merated the books of the Old Testament as held by 
the Jews. Of the Apocryphal books he makes no 
mention, except of the Wisdom of Solomon, and the 
Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach, of which, after 
referring to the canonical books, he says, " They like- 
wise are useful, but not brought into the same num- 
ber with the foregoing, and, therefore, are not placed 
in the ark of the covenant." 

Rufinus, presbyter of Aquileia, who wrote about 
the year 397, after giving distinct catalogues of the 
sacred Scriptures, botb of the Old Testament and the 
New, adds as follows : " However, it ought to be ob- 
served, that there are also other books that are not 
canonical, but have been called by our forefathers 
ecclesiastical, as the Wisdom of Solomon, and another 
which is called the Wisdom of the Son of Sirach ; 
and among the Latins, is called by the general name 
of Ecclesiasticus ; by which title is denoted not the 
author of the books, but the quality of the writing. 
In the same rank is the book of Tobit, and Judith, 
and the books of the Maccabees. In the New Tes- 
tament is the book of the Shepherd, or of Hermas, 
which is called the Two Ways, or the Judgment of 
Peter. All which they would have to be read in the 
churches, but not to be alleged by way of authority 
for proving articles of faith. Other Scriptures they 
called Apocryphal, which they would not have to be 
read in the churches." Thus it appears, that all the 
early Christian writers, while they were unanimous in 
acknowledging the Jewish Scriptures, rejected, with 



OLD TESTAMENT. 



37 



one accord, the Apocryphal books as uncanonical, or 
destitute of all claim to inspiration. 

The first catalogue of the books of the Old Testa- 
ment, in which Apocryphal books were added to the 
Jewish canon, although some refer it to a later date, 
is that of the third, sometimes called the sixth coun- 
cil of Carthage, which assembled in the year 397, 
when the books of the Maccabees were reckoned in 
the number of canonical books. But the word canon- 
ical appears to have been used by them loosely, as 
comprehending not only the Jewish Scriptures, which 
were admitted as the rule of faith, but those Apocry- 
phal books also, which they esteemed to be useful. 
It is said, too, that Innocent, Bishop of Rome, in the 
year 402, confirmed this catalogue ; but this is doubt- 
ful. Other Fathers and councils, in the succeeding 
centuries, speak occasionally of these books as canon- 
ical, meaning, however, as appears, in the secondary 
sense, and generally with express declarations of their 
inferiority to the Jewish canon, when that question 
w r as agitated. But at length the Council of Trent, 
in the sixteenth century, in order to check the pro- 
gress of the Reformation, pronounced the Apocryphal 
books (except the prayer of Manasseh, and the third 
and fourth books of Esdras) to be strictly canonical. 
From that period they have usurped the name of in- 
spired Scriptures, and have been intermingled with 
the canonical books in the Bibles of Roman Catholics. 
Thus, in direct opposition to the command of God, 
an addition was made to the sacred canon, in the very 
worst form, of many entire books, and these not cor- 
responding with the inspired writings, but in nume- 



38 GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY. 

rous instances, and most important particulars, direct- 
ly contradicting them.* 

We have thus observed the manner in which the 
Apocryphal books came to be connected with the 
canonical Scriptures. They were not admitted into 
the canon without much opposition. The most dis- 
tinguished Christian writers often protested against 
them, and although those who patronized them main- 
tained that they never meant to dignify these writings 



* The following list of books, which is annexed to the de- 
cree of the Council of Trent, will show how completely the 
Apocryphal books are intermingled in Roman Catholic Bibles. 
The books of the New Testament are the same as in the Pro- 
testant canon. 



5 of Moses, i.e. 

Genesis 

Exodus 

Leviticus 

Numbers 

Deuteronomy 

Joshua 

Judges 

Ruth 

Kings, 4f 

Chronicles, 2 

Ezra, 1 and 2 

Nehemiah 

Tobias 

Judith 

Esther 



Rest of Esther 
Job 

David's Psalms, 150 

Proverbs 

Ecclesiastes 

Song of Songs 

Wisdom 

Ecclesiasticus 

Isaiah 

Jeremiah 

Baruch 

Ezekiel 

Daniel 

Song of three Children 
Susanna 

Bel and the Dragon 



12 Prophets the less, 

i.e. 
Hosea 
Joel 
Amos 
Obadiah 
Jonah 
Micah 
Nahum 
Habakkuk 
Zephaniah 
Haggai 
Zechariah 
Malachi 

Maccabees, 2, 1. & IT. 



Four books, it will be observed, are incorporated in the 
body of the inspired texts of Esther and Daniel. 



OLD TESTAMENT. 



39 



with any authority as rules of faith, yet a presenti- 
ment, or foresight, of the abuse that might be made 
of them, induced many in the churches, and even 
whole churches, to resist their introduction. The 
Christian assemblies of the East were their principal 
opponents, and more strietly observed the directions 
of the Apostle John, who had passed a great part of 
his life among them. This appears evidently from 
the conduct and decisions of the Council of Laodicea 
above quoted, which was held in the fourth century, 
and which prohibited the reading of any but the ca- 
nonical books in the churches. 

The introduction of the Apocryphal books probably 
originated in their being written, as is supposed, by 
Jews, who constantly refer to the authenticated his- 
tory of their nation, and to the law delivered to their 
fathers. Although totally devoid of both external 
and internal evidence of their being from God, yet 
they came, as we have seen, to be considered as rela- 
ted to the Scriptures, not, indeed, as possessing divine 
authority, but as profitable for instruction ; and in this 
light they continued to be viewed till the Reforma- 
tion, which was produced by an open appeal to the 
Word of God. In vain did the Man of Sin, at that 
era, protest against tampering with the long-establish- 
ed authority of the church — in vain did he endeavour 
to prevent the translation and circulation of the Scrip- 
tures ; the palpable abuses in the Popish system con- 
vinced multitudes that it could not be of God, and 
the desire of examining the Scriptures became irre- 
sistible. Amidst all this enquiry, however, the igno- 
rance of Europe was so great, that the Council of 



40 GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY. 

Trent, above referred to, ventured to decree that the 
Apocryphal books were equal in point of authority, 
and were henceforth to be viewed as an integral part 
of the Word of God, and to pronounce its anathema 
on all who should reject them. 

It was then that the design of Satan, in bringing 
about the unhallowed connexion between the Holy 
Scriptures and the Apocryphal writings, was brought 
to light. He had patiently waited his opportunity, 
and, satisfied with having the books of lying prophets 
placed in juxta-position with the word of God, had 
not prosecuted the advantage which he had obtain- 
ed ; but he well knew that, in the course of events, 
this undefined association of truth and error — of sa- 
cred and profane- — would increase to more ungodli- 
ness ; and when the throne of Antichrist seemed tot- 
tering to its foundation, he successfully propped it up 
by the adulteration of the word of God, for which 
the unfaithfulness of Christians for a thousand years 
had paved the way. While the reformers strenuous- 
ly denied the authority of the Apocrypha, and loudly 
protested against the blasphemous decree by which 
it was sanctioned as divine, they yielded to the sug- 
gestions of a sinful expediency, and allowed it to re- 
tain that affinity to the Scriptures which it had long 
possessed, by being translated, bound up, and circu- 
lated along with them. And who can tell how far 
this has tended to produce that denial of the full in- 
spiration of the Scriptures, which is so lamentably 
common among Protestants ? Be this as it may, to 
the present hour the book of God is very generally 
profaned by this unhallowed connexion, more or less 



OLD TESTAMENT. 



41 



defined or acknowledged. But God now appears td 
have arisen to plead the cause of his own word. The 
question in regard to the Apocrypha has, in the course 
of his adorable providence, begun to be agitated, and 
it will issue in the purification of the fountain from 
which those waters flow, that are destined to diffuse 
life and felicity over the world. Ezek. xlvii. 8, 9. 
The means by which the attention of Christians has 
been directed to this all-important subject are very 
remarkable, and we are forcibly reminded, that in 
the good providence of God, the most important ef- 
fects frequently proceed from causes which at first 
appear to have a directly opposite tendency, and that 
the friends of truth have often reason to rejoice in 
the issue of events which at first occasioned the great- 
est alarm. We are thus taught to adore Him who 
makes the wrath of man to praise him, and causes 
human folly and wickedness to redound to the praise 
of his own glory. 

On the subject of adding the Apocryphal writings 
to the Holy Scriptures, Bishop Hall expresses him- 
self in the following terms : " The Scripture com- 
plains justly of three main wrongs offered to it. The 
first, of addition to the canon. Who can endure a 
piece of new cloth to be patched unto an old gar- 
ment ? or, what can follow hence, but that the rent 
should be worse ? Who can abide, that, against the 
faithful information of the Hebrews ; against the clear 
testimonies of Melito, Cyril, Athanasius, Origen, 
Hilary, Jerom, Rufinus, Nazianzen ; against their 
own doctors, both of the middle and latest age ; six 
whole books should, by their fatherhoods of Trent, 



42 GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY. 

be, under pain of a curse, imperiously obtruded upon 
God and his church ? Whereof yet, some purpose to 
their readers no better than magical jugglings ; others 
bloody self-murders ; others, lying fables ; and others, 
Heathenish rites ; not without a public applause in the 
relation .... We know full well how great impiety it 
is, to fasten upon the God of Heaven the weak con- 
ceptions of a human wit ; neither can we be any whit 
moved with the idle crack of the Tridentine curse, 
while we hear God thundering in our ears, ' If any 
man add unto these words, God shall add unto him 
the plagues written in this book ;' (Apocal. xxii. 18.) 
Neither know I, whether it be more wickedly auda- 
cious to fasten on God those things which he never 
wrote; or to weaken the authority, and deny the 
sufficiency, of what he hath written." — Hall's No 
Peace with Rome, fyc. 

While there are those who have dared to add cer- 
tain Apocryphal books to the Jewisb canon, which 
form no part of it, but are the production of lying 
prophets, and therefore under the curse pronounced 
upon such by God, there are others who have con- 
tended that certain books included in that canon do 
not constitute a part of divine revelation. This has 
been particularly the case respecting the book of 
Esther and the Song of Solomon, which, it has been 
alleged, are not quoted in the New Testament. But 
though this may be true as to particular passages, yet 
the books themselves are. quoted each time that either 
the Lord Jesus Christ or his Apostles refer to what 
" is written," or to " the Scriptures,"*of which they 



OLD TESTAMENT. 



43 



form a part. Exceptions have been made to these 
books from their contents, and on this ground their 
claim to be canonical has been doubted. Such a sen- 
timent is the effect of inconsiderate rashness and pre- 
sumption/* The arrogant wisdom of man may now 
pretend to quarrel with the Book of Esther for not 
containing the name of God, and to find impurity in 
the Song of Solomon, or imperfection in other books 
of Holy Writ. But the authority of Jesus Christ 
has given a sanction to every book in the Jewish ca- 
non, and blasphemy is written on the forehead of that 
theory that alleges imperfection, error, or sin, in 
any book in that sacred collection. It is not necessary 
to urge, that the genuineness and authenticity of the 
two books referred to were not only not doubted, but 
that they were received by the Jews with peculiar 
veneration, which is a well-known fact. The incon- 
trovertible proof respecting their authenticity and in- 
spiration is, that they form a part of those Scriptures 
which icere committed to the Jewish church, and 
sanctioned by the Lord and his Apostles. On these 
incontrovertible grounds, all the books of the Old 
Testament Scriptures are most surely believed by the 
great body of Christians to be the oracles of God ; 
and could it be shown that any one of them is not 
worthy of being received as a part of the sacred ca- 
non, this would invalidate the claim of all the rest. 
That man, therefore, who rejects a single one of these 
books as not being canonical, in other words, equally 
the dictates of inspiration as the rest, proves that he 
does not rely on the true and secure foundation which 



44 GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY. 

God has laid for entire confidence in that portion of 
the faithful record of his word. He does it in defi- 
ance of all the foregoing evidence ; and to deny the 
whole volume of inspiration would not require the 
adoption of any other principle than that on which he 
is proceeding. 



NEW TESTAMENT. 



45 



NEW TESTAMENT. 



From the time when the Old Testament was com- 
pleted by Malachi, the last of the prophets, till the 
publication of the New Testament, about 460 years 
elapsed. During the life of Jesus Christ, and for 
some time after his ascension, nothing on the subject 
of his mission was committed to writing. The period 
of his remaining upon earth, may be regarded as an 
intermediate state between the Old and New Dispen- 
sations. His personal ministry was confined to the 
land of Judea ; and, by means of his miracles and 
discourses, together with those of his disciples, the 
attention of men, in that country, was sufficiently 
directed to his doctrine. They were also in posses- 
sion of the Old Testament Scriptures, which, at that 
season, it was of the greatest importance they should 
consult, in order to compare the ancient predictions 
with what was then taking place. Immediately after 
the resurrection of Jesus Christ, his disciples, in the 
most public manner, and in the place where he had 
been crucified, proclaimed that event, and the whole 
of the doctrine which }5**nad commanded them to 
preach. In this service they continued personally to 
labour for a considerable time, first among their coun- 



46 GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY. 



trymen the Jews, and then among the other nations. 
During the period between the resurrection and the 
publication of the New Testament, the churches pos- 
sessed miraculous gifts, and the prophets were ena- 
bled to explain the predictions of the Old Testament, 
and to show their fulfilment. 

After their doctrine had every where attracted at- 
tention, and, in spite of the most violent opposition, 
had forced its way through the civilized world ; and 
when churches or societies of Christians were col- 
lected, not only in Judea, but in the most celebrated 
cities of Italy, Greece, and Asia Minor, the Scrip- 
tures of the New Testament were written by the 
Apostles, and other inspired men, and intrusted to the 
keeping of these churches. 

The whole of the New Testament was not written 
at once, but in different parts, and on various occa- 
sions. Six of the Apostles, and two inspired disciples 
who accompanied them in their journeys, were em- 
ployed in this work. The histories which it contains 
of the life of Christ, known by the name of the Gos- 
pels, were composed by four of his contemporaries, 
two of whom had been constant attendants on his 
public ministry. The first of these was published 
within a few years* after his death, in that very coun- 
try where he had lived, and among the people who 
had seen him and observed his conduct. The his- 



* " Some have thought tfat Jf was written no more than 
eight years after our Lord's ascension ; others have reckoned 
it no fewer than fifteen." — Campbell's Preface to Matthew's. 
Gospel, 



NEW TESTAMENT. 



tory called the " Acts of the Apostles," which con- 
tains an account of their proceedings, and of the pro- 
gress of the Gospel, from Jerusalem, among the gen- 
tile nations, was published about the year 6-i, being 
30 years after our Lord's crucifixion, by one who, 
although not an Apostle, declares that he had " per- 
fect understanding of all things, from the very first," 
and who had written one of the Gospels. This book, 
commencing with a detail of proceedings, from the 
resurrection of Jesus Christ, carries down the evan- 
gelical history till the arrival of Paul as a prisoner at 
Rome. The Epistles, addressed to churches in par- 
ticular places, to believers scattered up and down in 
different countries, or to individuals, in all twenty-one 
in number, were separately written, by five of the 
Apostles, from seventeen to twenty, thirty, and thirty- 
five years after the death of Christ. Four of these 
writers had accompanied the Lord Jesus during his 
life, and had been c: eye-witnesses of his majesty.'' 
The fifth was the Apostle Paul, who, as he expresses 
it. was 61 one born out of due time," but who had like- 
wise seen Jesus Christ, and had been empowered by 
him to work miracles, which were " the signs of an 
apostle." One of these five also wrote the book of 
Revelation, about the year 96, addressed to seven 
churches in Asia, containing epistles to these churches 
from Jesus Christ himself, with various instructions 
for the immediate use of all Christians, together with 
a prophetical view of the kiraplom of God till the end 
of time. These several^^^s, which compose the 
Scriptures of the New Testament, were received by 
the churches with the highest veneration ; and, as the 



48 GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY. 

instructions they contain, though partially addressed, 
were equally intended for all, they were immediately 
copied, and handed about from one church to another, 
till each was in possession of the whole. The volume 
of the New Testament was thus completed before the 
death of the last of the Apostles, most of whom had 
sealed their testimony with their blood. 

From the manner in which these Scriptures were 
at first circulated, some of their parts were necessa- 
rily longer of reaching certain places than others. 
These, of course, could not be so soon received into 
the canon as the rest. Owing to this circumstance, 
and to that of a few of the books being addressed to 
individual believers, or to their not having the name 
of their writers affixed, or the designation of Apostle 
added, a doubt for a time existed among some re- 
specting the genuineness of the Epistle to the He- 
brews, the Epistle of James, the 2d Epistle of Peter, 
the 2d and 3d Epistles of John, the Epistle of Jude, 
and the Book of Revelation. These, however, though 
not universally, were generally acknowledged ; while 
all the other books of the New Testament were with- 
out dispute received from the beginning. This dis- 
crimination proves the scrupulous care of the first 
churches on this highly important subject. 

At length these books, which had not at first been 
admitted, were^ like the rest, universally received, not 
by the votes of a council, as is sometimes asserted, 
but after deliberate and free enquiry by many sepa- 
rate churches, under the superintending providence of 
God, in different parts of the world. It is at the same 
time a certain fact, that no other books besides those 



NEW TESTAMENT. 



49 



which at present compose the volume of the New Tes- 
tament, were admitted by the churches. Several Apo- 
cryphal writings were published under the name of 
Jesus Christ and his Apostles, which are mentioned 
by the writers of the first four centuries, most of 
which have perished, though some are still extant. 
Few or none of them were composed before the se- 
cond century, and several of them were forged so late 
as the third century. But they were not acknow- 
ledged as authentic by the first Christians, and were 
rejected, by those who have noticed them, as spurious 
and heretical.* Histories, too, as might have been ex- 
pected, were written of the life of Christ, and one 
forgery was attempted, of a letter said to be written 
by Jesus himself to Abgarus, King of Edessa ; but 
of the first, none were received as of any authority, 
and the last was universally rejected. " Besides our 
Gospels, and the Acts of the Apostles," says Paley, 
" no Christian history claiming to be written by an 
apostle, or apostolical man, is quoted within 300 years 
after the birth of Christ, by any writer now extant or 



* u These forged writings," says Lardner, " do not oppose, 
but confirm, the account given us in the canonical Scriptures. 
They all take for granted the dignity of our Lord's person, 
and his power of working miracles ; they acknowledge the 
certainty of there having been such persons as Matthew and 
the other evangelists, and Peter and the other Apostles. They 
authenticate the general and leading facts contained in the 
New Testament. They presuppose that the Apostles received 
from Christ a commission to propagate his religion, and a su- 
pernatural power to enforce its authority. And thus they in- 
directly establish the truth and divine original of the Gospel." 
D 



50 GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY. 

known, or if quoted, is quoted with marks of censure 
and rejection." 

This agreement of Christians respecting the Scrip- 
tures, when we consider their many differences in 
other respects, is the more remarkable, since it took 
place without any public authority being interposed. 
" We have no knowledge/' says the above author, 
66 of any interference of authority in the question be- 
fore the council of Laodicea, in the year 363. Pro- 
bably the decree of this council rather declared than 
regulated the public judgment, or, more properly 
speaking, the judgment of some neighbouring churches 
— the council itself consisting of no more than thirty 
or forty bishops of Lydia and the adjoining countries. 
Nor does its authority seem to have extended far- 
ther." But the fact, that no public authority was in- 
terposed, does not require to be supported by the 
above reasoning. The churches at the beginning, be- 
ing widely separated from each other, necessarily 
judged for themselves in this matter, and the decree 
of the council was founded on the coincidence of their 
judgment. 

In delivering this part of his written revelation, 
God proceeded as he had done in the publication of 
the Old Testament Scriptures. For a considerable 
time, his will was declared to mankind through the 
medium of oral tradition. At length he saw meet, 
in his wisdom, to give it a more permanent form. But 
this did not take place, till a nation, separated from 
all others, was provided for its reception. In the same 
manner, when Jesus Christ set up his kingdom in the 
world, of which the nation of Israel was a type, he 



NEW TESTAMENT. 



51 



first made known his will by means of verbal com- 
munication, through his servants whom he commission- 
ed and sent out for that purpose ; and when, through 
their means, he had prepared his subjects and col- 
lected them into churches, to be the depositaries of 
his word, he caused it to be delivered to them in 
writing. His kingdom was not to consist of any par- 
ticular nation, like that of Israel, but of all those in- 
dividuals, in every part of the world, who should be- 
lieve in his name. It was to be ruled, not by means 
of human authority, or compulsion of any kind, but 
solely by his authority. These sacred writings were 
thus intrusted to a people prepared for their recep- 
tion — a nation among the nations, but singularly dis- 
tinct from all the rest, who guarded and preserved 
them with the same inviolable attachment as the Old 
Testament Scriptures had experienced from the Jews. 

Respecting the lateness of the time when the Scrip- 
tures of the New Testament were written, no objec- 
tion can be offered, since they were published before 
that generation passed which had witnessed the trans- 
actions they record. The dates of these writings fall 
within the period of the lives of many who were in 
full manhood when the Lord Jesus Christ was upon 
earth ; and the facts detailed in the histories, and re- 
ferred to in the Epistles, being of the most public na- 
ture, ^ere still open to full investigation. It must also 
be recollected, that the Apostles and disciples, during 
the whole intermediate period, were publicly pro- 
claiming to the world the same things which were af- 
terwards recorded in their writings. 

Had these Scriptures been published before so- 



52 GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY. 

cieties of Christians were in existence, to whose care 
could they have been intrusted ? What security 
would there have been for their preservation, or that 
they would not have been corrupted ? In the way 
which was adopted, they were committed to faithful 
men, who, viewing them as the charter of their own 
salvation, and the doctrine which they contained as 
the appointed means of rescuing their fellow crea- 
tures from misery and guilt, watched over their pre- 
servation with the most zealous and assiduous care. 

But unless the whole manner of communicating the 
revelation of God, in these Scriptures, had been al- 
tered, it is not possible, that, excepting the accounts 
of the life of Jesus Christ, they could have been 
earlier committed to writing. The history of the Acts 
of the Apostles, being carried down to about the year 
63 of the Christian era, could not, it is evident, have 
been published sooner. The Epistles are not address- 
ed to men of the world, or to the whole inhabitants 
of particular countries, but exclusively to believers. 
The truth conveyed in them is not delivered in an ab- 
stract form, but in the way of immediate application 
to existing cases and circumstances. This practical me- 
thod of communicating the doctrine, and of recording 
the laws of the kingdom of Christ, which commends 
itself to every reflecting mind, could not, it is mani- 
fest, have been adopted till societies of Christians 
were in existence, and till they had existed for some 
considerable time. In this way, too, we have an un- 
deniable proof of the success of the Apostles in the 
rapid progress of the Gospel. We are made ac- 
quainted, as we could not otherwise have been, with 



NEW TESTAMENT. 



53 



their zeal, resolution, self-denial, disinterestedness," 
patience, and meekness, and have the most convin- 
cing evidence of the extraordinary gifts they possess- 
ed. We are also put in possession of indubitable evi- 
dence of the miraculous gifts conferred on the first 
Christians, as well as of their sincerity, courage, and 
patience. 

Thus were the Scriptures, as we now possess them, 
delivered to the first churches. By the concurrent 
testimony of all antiquity, both of friends and foes, 
they were received by Christians of different sects, 
and were constantly appealed to on all hands, in the 
controversies that arose among them. Commentaries 
upon them were written at a very early period, and 
translations made into different languages. Formal 
catalogues of them were published, and they were 
attacked by the adversaries of Christianity, who not 
only did not question, but expressly admitted, the 
facts they contained, and that they were the genuine 
productions of the persons whose names they bore. 

In this manner the Scriptures were also secured 
from the danger of being in any respect altered or 
vitiated. " The books of Scripture," says Augus- 
tine, " could not have been corrupted. If such an 
attempt had been made by any one, his design would 
have been prevented and defeated. His alterations 
would have been immediately detected by many and 
more ancient copies. The difficulty of succeeding in 
such an attempt is apparent hence, that the Scrip- 
tures were early translated into divers languages, 
and copies of them were numerous. The alterations 
which any one attempted to make would have been 



54 GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY. 

soon perceived ; just even as now, in fact, lesser faults 
in some copies are amended by comparing ancient 
copies or those of the original. ... If any one," con- 
tinues Augustine, " should charge you with having 
interpolated some texts alleged by you as favour- 
able to your cause, what would you say ? Would 
you not immediately answer that it is impossible for 
you to do such a thing in books read by all Christians ? 
And that if any such attempt had been made by you, 
it would have been presently discerned and defeated 
by comparing the ancient copies ? Well, then, for 
the same reason that the Scriptures cannot be cor- 
rupted by you, neither could they be corrupted by 
any other people." 

Accordingly, the uniformity of the manuscripts 
of the Holy Scriptures that are extant, which are in- 
comparably more numerous than those of any ancient 
author, and which are dispersed through so many 
countries, and in so great a variety of languages, is 
truly astonishing. It demonstrates both the vene- 
ration in which the Scriptures have always been 
held, and the singular care that has been taken in 
transcribing them. The number of various readings, 
that by the most minute and laborious investigation 
and collations of manuscripts have been discovered 
in them, said to amount to one hundred and fifty 
thousand, though at first sight they may seem calcu- 
lated to diminish confidence in the sacred text, yet 
in no degree whatever do they affect its credit and 
integrity. They consist almost wholly in palpable 
errors in transcription, grammatical and verbal dif- 
ferences, such as the insertion or omission of a let- 



NEW TESTAMENT. 



55 



ter or article, the substitution of a word for its equi- 
valent, the transposition of a word or two in a sen- 
tence. Taken altogether, they neither change nor 
affect a single doctrine or duty announced or enjoin- 
ed in the Word of God.* When, therefore, we con- 
sider the great antiquity of the sacred books, the al- 
most infinite number of copies, of versions, of editions, 
which have been made of them in all languages, — in 
languages which have not any analogy one with an- 
other, among nations differing so much in their cus- 
toms and their religious opinions, — When we consi- 
der these things, it is truly astonishing, and can only 
be ascribed to the watchful providence of God over 
his own word, that amongst the various readings, no- 
thing truly essential can be discerned, which relates 
to either precept or doctrine, or which breaks that 
connexion — that unity — which subsists in all the 
various parts of divine revelation, and which demon- 
strates the whole to be the work of one and the same 
Spirit. 

In proof that the Scriptures were published and 
delivered to the churches in the age to which their 
dates refer, we have the attestation of a connected 
chain of Christian writers, from that period to the 
present day. No fewer than six of these authors, part 
of whose works are still extant, were contemporaries 
of the Apostles. 



* Dr Kennicott examined and collated 600 Hebrew ma- 
nuscripts, and so trilling were the variations he discovered, 
that it has been objected, though very unjustly, that he had 
effected nothing by all his labours. 



56 GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY. * 

Barnabas was the companion of the Apostle 
Paul. He is the author of an Epistle, which was 
well known among the early Christians. It is still 
extant, and refers to the Apostolic writings. 

Clement was the third bishop of the church in 
Rome, and is mentioned by Paul in his Epistle to 
the Philippians. He has left a long Epistle, which 
is extant, though not entire, written in name of the 
church at Rome to the church at Corinth, in which 
the latter is admonished to adhere to the commands 
of Christ. Irenseus says that it was written by Cle- 
ment, " who had seen the blessed Apostles, and 
conversed with them ; who had the preaching of the 
Apostles still sounding in his ears, and their tra- 
ditions before his eyes. Nor he alone, for there were 
then still many alive, who had been taught by the 
Apostles. In the time therefore of this Clement, 
when there was no small dissension among the bre- 
thren at Corinth, the church at Rome sent a most 
excellent letter to the Corinthians, persuading them 
to peace among themselves." About 80 or 90 years 
after this letter was written, Dionysius, the Bishop at 
Corinth, declares, that " it had been wont to be read 
in that church from ancient times." It contains se- 
veral quotations from the New Testament Scriptures, 
and allusions to them. 

Hermas also, contemporary with the Apostles, 
has left a book that still remains, called, " The Shep- 
herd of Hermas," in which he quotes and enforces the 
doctrine of Scripture. 

Ignatius was bishop of the church at Antioch, 
about thirty- seven years after Christ's ascension. He 



NEW TESTAMENT. 



57 



suffered martyrdom at Rome under the Emperor ^ ^ « . 
Trajan. Ignatius has left several Epistles that are * * ; 
still extant, which give testimony to Jesus Christ and j^a^ta JUu,- 
his doctrine. He declares, that he " fled to the Gos- ,)^oJa. LM^u^i 
pels as the flesh of Jes us, and to the Apostles as the q^iU,f ^ 
eld ers of the churc h." ^ 5|U*tk^. (Wt^ 

Polycarp had been taught by the Apostles, and U t ^ ^ arr ^ 
had conversed with many who had seen Christ. He 2 
was appointed by the Apostles, Bishop of the church ^ vM c^^l -\c 
at Smyrna. One epistle of his still remains, which w ^ A* ^ t4 ^ Cu " 
evinces the respect that he and other Christians bore ^ 1 c ^^^ ' 
for the Scriptures. Ireriseus, who, in his youth, had 1 
been a disciple of Polycarp, says, concerning him, in 
a letter to Florinus, — " I saw you when I was very 
young, in the Lower Asia with Polycarp. For I 
better remember the affairs of that time, than those 
which have lately happened ; the things which we 
learn in our childhood growing up with the soul, and 
uniting themselves to it. Insomuch, that I can tell 
the place in which the blessed Polycarp sat and taught, 
and his going out and coming in, and the manner of 
his life, and the form of his person, and the discourses 
he made to the people ; and how he related his con- 
versation with John, and others who had seen the 
Lord ; and how he related their sayings, and what he 
had heard from them concerning the Lord ; both con- 
cerning his miracles and his doctrine, as he had re- 
ceived them from the eye-witnesses of the Word of 
Life : all which Polycarp related agreeable to the 
Scriptures. These things I then, through the mercy 
of God toward me, diligently heard and attended to, 
recording them not on paper, but upon my heart. 



58 GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY. 



And through the grace of God I continually renew 
the remembrance of them." Polycarp was condemned 
to the flames at Smyrna, the proconsul being present, 
and all the people in the amphitheatre demanding his 
death. Thus, like Ignatius, he confirmed his testi- 
mony to the Scriptures with his blood. 

Papias was a hearer of the Apostle John, and a 
companion of Polycarp. He was the author of five 
books, which are now lost, but which, according to 
quotations from them that remain, bore testimony to 
the Scriptures. He expressly ascribes their respec- 
tive Gospels to Matthew and Mark. 

The above six writers had all lived and conversed 
with some of the Apostles. Those parts which re- 
main of the writings of the first five, who are called the 
Apostolical Fathers, are valuable by their antiquity ; 
and all of them contain some important testimony to 
the Scriptures. 

About twenty years after these writers follows Jus- 
tin Martyr. He was born about the year 89, and 
suffered martyrdom about the year 163. Originally 
he had been a Heathen philosopher ; and, in his dia- 
logue with Trypho the Jew, he relates the circum- 
stances of his conversion to Christianity. From his 
works might be extracted almost a complete life of 
Christ ; and he uniformly represents the Scriptures as 
, containing the authentic account of his doctrine. The 

luu. ccaciAA.u . a)^ q Qgpgig^ h e sa y S> were read and expounded every 

oL^iucrtt ^ iuicuounday m the solemn assemblies or the Christians, 
twi^t- ^iwj^He particularly mentions the Acts of the Apostles, 
d tL i^Mt^ along with the books of the Old Testament, which 
were also regularly read as in the Jewish synjyrojgues ; 



NEW TESTAMENT. 



59 



and he appeals to the Scriptures as writings open 
to all the world, and read by Jews and Gentiles. 
He presented two apologies for the Christian reli- 
gion ; the first to the Emperor Antoninus Pius, in the 
year 140 ; the second to Marcus Antoninus, the phi- 
losopher, in the year 162. Both these apologies are 
still extant ; the first entire, of the second the begin- 
ning is wanting. 

Dionysius, Tatian, and Hegesippus, wrote 
about thirty years after Justin Martyr, and give their 
testimony to the Scriptures. Hegesippus relates, 
that, travelling from Palestine to Rome, he visited in 
his journey many bishops ; and that c< in every succes- 
sion, and in every city, the same doctrine is taught 
which the law and the prophets and the Lord 
teacheth." 

About the year 177, the churches of Lyons and 
Vienne in France sent a relation of the persecutions 
they suffered to the churches in Asia and Phrygia. 
Pothixus, bishop of the church at Lyons, was then 
90 years old ; and in his early life was contemporary 
with the Apostle John. This letter, which is preser- 
ved entire, makes exact references to the Scriptures. 

Iren.eus succeeded Pothinus as bishop at Lyons. 
In his youth, as has been already noticed, he had 
been a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of 
the Apostle John. Thus he was only one step re- 
moved from the Apostles. Irenseus gives a most 
ample testimony, both to the genuineness and the 
authenticity of the Scriptures. " We have not re- 
ceived," says he, " the knowledge of the way of our 
salvation by any others than those by whom the 



60 GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY. 

Gospel has been brought to us ; which Gospel they 
first preached, and afterwards, by the will of God, 
committed to writing, that it might be for time to 
come the foundation and pillar of our faith. — For 
after that our Lord rose from the dead, and they (the 
Apostles) were endued from above with the power 
of the Holy Ghost coming down upon them, they 
received a perfect knowledge of all things. They 
then went forth to all the ends of the earth, declaring 
to men the blessing of heavenly peace, having, all of 
them, and every one alike, the Gospel of God. Mat- 
thew, then among the Jews, wrote a Gospel in their 
own language, while Peter and Paul were preaching the 
Gospel at Rome, and founding a church there. And 
after their exit, (death or departure,) Mark also, the 
disciple and interpreter of Peter, delivered to us in 
writing the things that had been preached by Peter ; 
and Luke, the companion of Paul, put down in a 
book the gospel preached by him (Paul.) After- 
wards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also lean- 
Ivul lxfi<ifcU<t-ed upon his breast, he likewise published a Gospel 
i^^^xU while he dwelt at Ephesus in Asia. And all these 
n^ti % <<")ui* jj ave delivered to us, that there is one God, the maker 
CthcL ^ Lu ^°f tne heaven and the earth, declared by the law and 
/ ^ r the prophets, and one Christ, the Son of God. And 
^ he who does not assent to them, despisetn indeed 

those who knew the mind of the Lord : but he de- 
spiseth also Christ himself the Lord, and he despiseth 
likewise the Father, and is self-condemned, resisting 
and opposing his own salvation, as all heretics do."— 
" The tradition of the Apostles hath spread itself over 
the whole universe ; and all they who search after the 



NEW TESTAMENT. 



61 



sources of truth, will find this tradition to be held 
sacred in every church. We might enumerate all those 
who have been appointed bishops to those churches 
by the Apostles, and all their successors up to our 
days. It is by this uninterrupted succession that we 
have received the tradition which actually exists in 
the church, and also the doctrine of truth as it is 
preached by the Apostles." 

After giving some reasons why he supposed the 
number of the Gospels was precisely four, Irenseus 
says, " Whence it is manifest that the Word, the 
Former of all things, who sits upon the cherubim, 
and upholds all things, having appeared to men, has 
given to us a Gospel of a fourfold character, but joined 
in one spirit. — The Gospel according to John dis- 
closes his primary and glorious generation from the 
Father : 6 In the beginning was the Word.' — But the 
Gospel according to Luke, being of a priestly charac- 
ter, begins with Zacharias the priest offering incense 
to God. — Matthew relates his generation, which is 
according to men : i The book of the generation of 
Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham/ — 
Mark begins from the prophetic spirit which came 
down from above to men, saying, 6 The beginning of 
the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Esaias 
the prophet/ " 

The above passage distinctly ascertains, that the 
four Gospels, as we have them, and no more, were 
equally received and acknowledged by the first 
churches. 

Irenseus farther says, " The Gospel according to 
Matthew was written to the Jews, for they earnest- 



62 GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY. 

ly desired a Messiah of the seed of David ; and Mat- 
thew, having also the same desire to a yet greater 
degree, strove by all means to give them full satisfac- 
tion that Christ was of the seed of David, wherefore 
he began with his genealogy." — " Wherefore also 
Mark, the interpreter and follower of Peter, makes 
this the beginning of his evangelic writing, < The be- 
ginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.' 
And in the end of the Gospel, Mark says, 6 So then, 
the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was re- 
ceived up into Heaven, and sat on the right hand of 
God.' " — " But if any one rejects Luke, as if he did 
not know the truth, he will be convicted of throwing 
away the Gospel, of which he professeth to be a dis- 
ciple. For there are many, and those very necessary, 
parts of the Gospel, which we know by his means." 
He then refers to several particulars, which are known 
only from Luke. 

The Acts of the Apostles is a book much quoted 
by Irenseus, as written by Luke, the companion of 
the Apostles. There are few things recorded in that 
book which have not been mentioned by him. " And 
that Luke," says he, " was inseparable from Paul, and 
his fellow-worker in the Gospel, he himself shows, 
not boasting of it indeed, but obliged to it for the 
sake of truth." 

Irenseus quotes largely from the Epistles of Paul, 
and remarks, that this Apostle " frequently uses hy- 
perbata," (or transpositions of words from their natu- 
ral order,) " because of the rapidity of his words, and 
because of the mighty force of ( the Spirit in him/ " 
The book of .Revelation Irenseus often quotes, and 



NEW TESTAMENT. 



63 



says, " It was seen no long time ago, but almost in- 
our own age, at the end of the reign of Domitian." 
He mentions the code of the Old Testament and of 
the New, and calls the one, as well as the other, the 
Oracles of God. 

Speaking of the Scriptures in general, he says, 
" well knowing that the Scriptures are perfect, as ' 
being dictated by the word of God and his Spirit." — 
" A heavy punishment awaits those who add to or 
take from the Scriptures." — " But we, following the 
one and the only true God as our teacher, and having 
his words as a rule of truth, do all always speak the 
same things concerning the same things." 

Athenagoras, Miltiades, Theophilus, and 
Pant2ENUSj who lived at the same time with Ireneeus, 
all bear testimony to the Scriptures. Some of their 
works remain, and others are lost. 

Clement, of Alexandria, followed Irenseus at the 
distance of sixteen years. He was a man of great 
learning, and presided in the Catechetical School at 
Alexandria. Clement travelled into different coun- 
tries in search of information. " The law and the 
Prophets, together with the Gospels," he says, " con- 
duct to one and the same knowledge in the name of 
Christ." — " One God and Almighty Lord is taught 
by the law and the prophets, and the blessed Gospels." 
He has given a distinct account of the order in which- 
the four Gospels were written. The Gospels which 
contain the genealogies were, he says, written first, * 
Mark's next, and John's the last. He repeatedly 
quotes the four Gospels by the names of their authors/ 
and expressly ascribes the Acts of the Apostles to 



64 GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY. 

Luke. His quotations from the Scriptures of the New 
Testament are numerous, and he calls them " the 
Scriptures of the Lord," and the " true evangelical 
canon." 

Next to Clement, and in the same age, comes Ter- 
tullian, who was born at Carthage about the year 
160. He was a man of extensive learning, and the 
most considerable of all the Latin writers on Chris- 
tianity. He wrote a very valuable apology for the 
Christians, about the year 198, addressed to the go- 
vernors of provinces, which is still extant. He gives 
the most ample attestation to the Scriptures, quoting 
them so frequently, that, as Lardner observes, there 
are more and longer quotations of the small volume 
of the New Testament in this one Christian author, 
than there are of all the works of Cicero in writers 
of all characters for several ages. After enumerating 
many churches which had been gathered by Paul and 
the other Apostles, he declares, that not those churches 
only which were called Apostolical, but all who have 
fellowship with them in the same faith, received the 
Knx a^^^, f om . Gospels/and that these had been in the posses- 
2 - <^W^ /v sion of the churches from the beginning. He also 
declares, that the original manuscripts of the Apos- 
tles, at least some of them, were preserved till the 
age in which he lived, and were then to be seen. 

" In the first place," says Tertullian, " we lay this 
down for a certain truth, that the Evangelic Scriptures 
have for their authors the Apostles, to whom the work 
of publishing the Gospel was committed by the Lord 
himself ; and also Apostolical men. — Among the 
Apostles, John and Matthew teach us the faith; 



NEW TESTAMENT. 



65 



among Apostolical men, Luke and Mark refresh it, 
going upon the same principles as concerning the one 
God the Creator, and his Christ born of a virgin, the 
accomplishment of the law and the prophets. — If it 
be certain that that is most genuine which is most 
ancient, that most ancient which is from the begin- 
ning, and that from the beginning which is from the 
Apostles ; in like manner, it will be also certain that 
that has been delivered from the Apostles which is 
held sacred in the churches of the Apostles. Let us 
then see what milk the Corinthians received from Paul, 
to what rule the Galatians were reduced, what the 
Philippians read, what the Thessalonians, the Ephe- 
sians, and also the Romans recite, who are near to us ; 
with whom both Peter and Paul left the Gospel seal- 
ed with their blood. We have also churches which 
are the disciples of John ; for, though Marcion rejects 
his Revelation, the succession of Bishops, traced up 
to the beginning, will show it to have John for its 
author. We know also the original of other churches, 
(that is, that they are Apostolical.) I say, then, that 
with them, but not with them only that are Aposto- 
lical, but with all who have fellowship with them in 
the same faith, is that Gospel of Luke received, which 
we so zealously maintain." That is the genuine en- 
tire Gospel of Luke, not that which had been curtail- 
ed and altered by Marcion. " The same authority 
of the Apostolical churches will support the other 
Gospels, which we have from them, and according to 
them, (that is, according to their copies.) I mean 
John's and Matthew's, although that likewise which 
Mark published may be said to be Peter's, whose in- 

E 



68 



GENUINENESS AND 



AUTHENTICITY. 



terpreter Mark was, for Luke's digest also is often 
ascribed to Paul." Tertullian says that Matthew's 
Gospel began in this manner, " The book of the gene- 
ration of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of 
Abraham." The Acts of the Apostles are often quo- 
ted by him under that title : he calls them Luke's 
Commentary, or History. 

" I will," says Tertullian, " by no means say Gods 
nor Lords, but I will follow the Apostle ; so that, if 
the Father and the Son are to be mentioned together, 
I will say God the Father, and Jesus Christ the Lord ; 
but when I mention Christ only, I can call him God, 
as the Apostle does." " Of whom Christ came, who 
is" says he, " over all, God blessed for ever" 

To Tertullian succeeds a multitude of Christian 
writers. Of the works of these authors, only fragments 
and quotations remain, in which severa l testi monies 
to the Gospels are found . In one of them is an ab- 
stract of the whole Gospel history. 

After those writers, and at the distance of twenty- 
five years from Tertullian, comes the celebrated Ori- 
gen of Alexandria, of whom it is said, that " he did 
not so much recommend Christianity by what he 
preached, or by what he wrote, as by the general te- 
nor of his life." He was born about 150 years after 
the resurrection of Jesus Christ. In the quantity of 
his writings he exceeded the most laborious of the 
Greek and Latin writers. He gives full and decisive 
testimony to the Scriptures. He says, " that the four 
Gospels alone^are received without dispute by the 
U*^^^^? .whole church of God under heaven;" and he sub - 
^u^j~ ckj; ^j j ns a jj} stor y f tne i r respective authors. " The first," 



NEW TESTAMENT. 



67 



says Origen, " is written by Matthew, once a pub- 
lican, afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ. The se- 
cond is that according to Mark, who wrote it as Pe- 
ter dictated to him, who therefore calls him his son 
in his Catholic Epistle. The third is that according to 
Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, published for 
the sake of the Gentile converts. Lastly, that accord- 
ing to John." He speaks of the Acts of the Apostles as 
an uncontested book, and gives the same account con- 
cerning Mark's Gospel as having been written under 
the direction of the Apostle Peter, which is -given "by 
Clement. It is reckoned a monument of the humility 
of Peter, that several very remarkable circumstances 
in his favour, that are related by the other Evangelists, j^-e^u <* 
are not mentioned, or even hinted at, by Mark.^ *^"7*t^£! 

Origen uniformly quotes the Epistle to the He-^^*^^ ^ U 
brews as the writing of the Apostle Paul, and the "ty k> eUe/rcM, $ 
Book of Revelation as the writing of the Apostle ^^X^l W & C+ 
John. His quotations of Scripture are so numerous, • jta 
that Dr Mill says, " if we had all his works remain- RuA-™*^ ^jtkc 
ing. we should have before us almost the whole text jm., , } w 
of the Bible." He expresses, in the most unqualified ta^tW.. 
terms, his opinion of the authority of the books of the 
New Testament as inspired writings, and says, that 
" the sacred books are not writings of men, but have 
been written and delivered to us from the inspiration of 
the Holy Spirit, by the will of the Father of all, through 
Jesus Christ." He urges, with earnestness, the reading 
of the Old and New Testament Scriptures, as a sacred 
obligation in the churches of Christ. " Food," says 
he, " is eaten, physic is taken ; though the good ef- 
fect is not presently perceived, a benefit is expected 



68 GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY. 



in time, and may be obtained. So it is with the Holy 
Scriptures ; though, at the very time of reading of 
them, there be no sensible advantage, yet, in the end, 
they will be thought profitable for strengthening vir- 
tuous dispositions, and weakening the habits of vice. 
— The true food of the rational nature is the word of 
God. — Let us come daily to the wells of the Scrip- 
tures, the waters of the Holy Spirit, and there draw 
and carry hence a full vessel. The greatest torment 
of demons is to see men reading the word of God, and 
labouring to understand the divine law." 

In his Apology for the Christian Religion, in an- 
swer to Celsus the Epicurean philosopher, Origen, 
when giving a quotation from Scripture, says that it 
is written, " not in any private book, or such as are 
read by a few persons only, but in books read by 
every body." In that Apology, he has preserved, from 
the writings of Celsus, most distinct and complete 
attestations to the Gospel history. 

Gregory, Bishop at Neocesaria, and Dionysius 
of Alexandria, scholars of Origen, and the well-known 
Cyprian, Bishop at Carthage, come about twenty 
years after Origen. Their writings abound with co- 
pious citations from the Scriptures, to which they give 
their full and particular attestation. Cyprian says, 
4 ' The church is watered, like Paradise, by four rivers, 
that is, f our Gosp els." 

Within forty years after Cyprian, Vic torin us, 
Bishop at Pettaw, in Germany, and a multitude of 
Christian writers, all testify their profound respect for 
the Scriptures. 

About the year 306, Arnobius and Lactantius 



NEW TESTAMENT. 



69 



wrote in support of the Christian religion. Lactan-* 
tius argues in its defence, from the consistency, sim- 
plicity, disinterestedness, and sufferings of the wri- 
ters of the Gospels. Arnobius vindicates the credit 
of the writers of the Gospels, observing, that they 
were eye-witnesses of the facts which they relate, and 
that their ignorance of the arts of composition was 
rather a confirmation of their testimony, than an ob- 
jection to it. 

Eusebius, Bishop at Caesarea, born about the year 
270, wrote about fifteen years after the above authors. 
He composed a History of Christianity, from its ori- 
gin to his own time ; and has handed down many va- 
luable extracts of ancient authors, whose works have 
perished. In giving his testimony to the Scriptures, 
he shows himself to be much conversant in the works 
of Christian authors, and he appears to have collect- 
ed every thing that had been said, before his own 
time, respecting the volume of the New Testament. 

Athanasius became Bishop at Alexandria about 
the year 326. He expressly affirms, that every one 
of the books of the New Testament that we now 
receive, are inspired Scriptures, which he specifies in 
their order, and ascribes them to the writers whose 
names they bear. He repr esen t s them as constantly 
and publicly read in the Chris t ian churches . Atha- 
nasius had access to every source of information, and 
applied himself to ascertain the canon of the Old 
Testament as well as of the New. It appears, that he 
sent to the Emperor Constance a copy of the whole 
Bible, which he described as the whole inspired 
Scriptures. Speaking of the Scriptures, he says, 



70 GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY. 

" These are fountains of salvation. In them alone, 
the doctrine of religion is taught. Let no man add 
to them, or take any thing from them." 

It is unnecessary to carry down this chain of his- 
torical evidence any farther. The Council of Nice 
was called by Constantine in the year 325 ; and as 
Christianity had then become the established religion 
of the Roman empire, its history is afterwards inse- 
parably interwoven with every thing connected with 
the state of the world. 

From the above numerous and early writers, we 
have most unquestionable attestations to the integrity 
and authority of the Holy Scriptures. First, we have 
six writers who were contemporary with the Apostles, 
and then eleven more who lived in distant parts of the 
world, regularly succeeding each other during the first 
hundred years after the Apostles. From that period, 
the chain of evidence continues unbroken and unin- 
terrupted. " When Christian advocates," says Paley, 
" merely tell us that we have the same reason for belie- 
ving the Gospels to be written by the Evangelists whose 
names they bear, as we have for believing the Com- 
mentaries to be Caesar's, the iEneid Virgil's, or the 
Orations Cicero's, they content themselves with an im- 
perfect representation. They state nothing more than 
what is true, but they do not state the truth correctly. 
In the number, variety, and early date of our testimo- 
nies, we far exceed all other ancient books. For one 
which the most celebrated work of the most cele- 
brated Greek or Roman writer can allege, we produce 
many." 

The force of the above testimony is greatly strength- 



NEW TESTAMENT. 



71 



ened by the consideration, that it is the eoncurring- 
evidence of separate, independent, and well-informed 
writers, who lived in countries remote from one an- 
other. Clement lived at Rome ; Ignatius, at An- 
tioch ; Poly carp, at Smyrna ; Justin Martyr, in Sy- 
ria ; Irenaeus, in France; Tertullian, at Carthage; 
Origen, in Egypt ; Eusebius, at Ccesarea ; Victori- 
nus, in Germany. The dangers which they encoun- 
tered, and the hardships and persecutions which they 
suffered, some of them even unto death, on account 
of their adherence to the Christian faith, give irresist- 
ible weight to their testimony. 

" No writings," says Augustine, " ever had a bet- 
ter testimony afforded them than those of the Apos- 
tles and Evangelists. Nor does it weaken the credit 
and authority of books, received by the church of 
Christ from the beginning, that some other writings 
have been, without ground, and falsely, ascribed to the 
Apostles. For the like has happened, for instance, 
to Hippocrates ; but yet his genuine works are dis- 
tinguished from others which have been published 
under his name. We know the writings of the Apos- 
tles as we know the works of Plato, Aristotle, Ci- 
cero, Varro, and others, to be theirs, and as we know 
the writings of divine ecclesiastical authors ; for as 
much as they have the testimony of contemporaries, 
and of those who have lived in succeeding times. I 
might, moreover, by way of illustration, produce for 
examples those now in hand. Suppose some one in 
time to come should deny those to be the works of 
Faustus, or those to be mine ; how should he be sa- 
tisfied but by the testimony of those of this time who 



72 GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY. 

knew both, and have transmitted their accounts to 
others ? And shall not, then, the testimony of the 
churches, and Christian brethren, be valid here ; es- 
pecially when they are so numerous, and so harmo- 
nious, and the tradition is with so much ease and cer- 
tainty traced down from the Apostles to our time — 
I say, shall any be so foolish and unreasonable as to 
deny or dispute the credibility of such a testimony 
to the Scriptures, which would be allowed in behalf 
of any writings whatever, whether heathen or eccle- 
siastical ?" 

In another place Augustine observes, " If you here 
ask us, how we know these to be the writings of the 
Apostles ; in brief we answer, in the same way that 
you know the epistles, or any other writings of Ma- 
ui, to be his : for if any one should be pleased to dis- 
pute with you, and offer to deny the epistles ascri- 
bed to Mani to be his, what would you do ? Would 
you not laugh at the assurance of the man who de- 
nied the genuineness of writings generally allowed ? 
As therefore it is certain those books are Mani's, 
and he would be ridiculous who should now dispute 
it ; so certain is it that the Manichees deserve to be 
laughed at, or rather ought to be pitied, who dispute 
the truth and genuineness of those writings of the 
Apostles, which have been handed down as theirs 
from their time to this through an uninterrupted suc- 
cession of well-known witnesses." 

Should it occur to any that to prove the genuine* 
ness and authenticity of the Scriptures by the testi- 
mony of the Fathers, is to sanction the traditions of 
the Church of Rome, they ought to consider that 



NEW TESTAMENT. 



73 



there is a radical distinction between these two cases. 
Testimony is a first principle, universally acknow- 
ledged as authoritative in its own province, as far as 
it is unexceptionable. The whole business of the world 
proceeds on this principle, and without it human affairs 
would run into utter confusion. That historical tes- 
timony is a legitimate source of evidence, the general 
sentiments of mankind admit, in the universal appeal 
to history for the knowledge of past events. Histo- 
rical testimony may be false, but this is not peculiar 
to this class of first principles. We are liable to be de- 
ceived on all subjects to which our faculties are direct- 
ed ; but there are means by which historical evidence 
may be ascertained. Its proof may vary from the 
lowest degree of probability to the highest degree of 
certainty. Of many things recorded even in profane 
history, we can have no more doubt than we can have 
of truths that contain their own evidence. Now, the 
stress laid on the testimony of the ancient writers that 
have been quoted, is warranted by the most cautious 
laws of historical evidence ; and it cannot be rejected, 
without entirely rejecting history as a legitimate 
ground of knowledge. That such writers did give 
such testimony, is as indisputable as any historical 
fact can be. And the proof of this lies open to every 
man who has time, opportunity, and ability to exa- 
mine the subject. If so, there is no reason to reject as 
insufficient, in proof of the authenticity of the Bible, 
the same kind of evidence that is allowed to prove 
any other fact. But the traditions of the Church of 
Rome are not of this nature. They are not histori- 
cal at all. They have not been written ; they are 



74 GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY. 

nowhere to be found. It is not pretended by their 
friends that they possess historical evidence. They 
are recommended altogether on another foundation, 
— the authority of the church. It is said the church 
has had them treasured up in secret ; but we can have 
no higher assurance of their authenticity than what 
we are willing to rest on the authority of the church. 
The difference, then, between the two cases, is mani- 
fest and essential. And clearer historical proof can- 
not be exhibited on any subject, than has been ad- 
duced for the genuineness and authenticity of the 
Holy Scriptures. 

It has been supposed that if a list of the names and 
numbers of the books of Scripture had been record- 
ed in any part of the canon, it would have added to 
our certainty respecting the divine original of the 
whole. But if there were such a list, it would still 
remain to be decided whether the books we possess 
were the very books named, in words and substance, as 
well as in name. Indeed if the list were written, and 
the number of lines and words recorded, the case 
would still be the same. It would not in the small- 
est degree add to our certainty respecting their divine 
original ; for how could we be assured of that inspired 
list, but from the certainty of the book being from 
God that contained the list ? Such a list could neither 
ascertain its own accuracy, nor the authenticity of the 
book which contained it. The authenticity of that 
list must have been ascertained precisely in the same 
manner as that of each and all of the books is now 
ascertained. 

If, therefore, the name and number of the inspired 



NEW TESTAMENT. 



75 



books were contained in any epistle, it would still leave 
the authority of the books named, on the same founda- 
tion of the authority of the epistle in which they were 
named ; and that authority must have been ascertain- 
ed exactly in the same way by which we now ascer- 
tain the authority of each and all of the inspired books. 
The ultimate foundation, then, of the evidence would 
be the same, as to that particular part which contain- 
ed the list ; and, with respect to the books mentioned 
in the list, we could not be assured against their mu- 
tilation and corruption. It is quite absurd, then, to 
suppose that a list of the names and numbers of the 
inspired books would have given us better evidence 
of their authority. The authority of that part which 
contained such a list, must be ascertained in the or- 
dinary way ; and, as the stream cannot rise higher 
than the fountain, the authority of all the books, as 
resting on the testimony of one, would be no stronger 
than that of the one which supported them. In what- 
ever way that one could prove its divine authority, in 
the same way we now prove the authority of all.^ fa. w^^*>^ 
The circumstance, then, that there is not a list of ^f^^^'^^l. 
the books of inspiration contained in the page of in- / C : 
spiration itself, does not lessen the certainty as to the **** 
canon, nor increase the difficulty 01 ascertaining the ^ , <c <//^- & 
truth of it. That if a list of the books of Scripture^ //L 
were given in the Scriptures, it would not fix the '^/f**^?^'.} 
question of the canon on a surer foundation, is obvious, "v \',. 
too, from the consideration that a forgery might con-V, , oLcCcCt 
tain such a list, as well as an authentic document, and/ ^ /*< < ' °$ nz< 
that the truth of such a list takes it for granted that^ 
the book which contains it is canonical. Is the second 



76 GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY. 

epistle of Peter put above the first, as to the certain- 
ty of its being canonical, by the assertion, " This 
second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you." Does 
such an expression establish its being canonical ? Is 
it not evident, on the contrary, that the epistle's being 
canonical must be established, before the assertion, 
" This second epistle I now write unto you," is be- 
lieved to be inspired ? So far from such a list pro- 
ving that the books which contain it are canonical, it 
Jnc^, is their being canonical that verifies the list. If the 
claim of a book of Scripture to be canonical is not 
ascertained, the list which it contains is not revelation. 
With respect to the books of the Old Testament, 
however, such a list is in effect given, and the inspi- 
ration of them warranted in the assertion, " All 
Scripture is given by inspiration." Now, the steps 
by which we arrive at certainty here, are few and 
simple. If the book of the New Testament which 
contains this assertion is canonical, it warrants all the 
books of the Old Testament which at the time of its 
publication were received as Scripture. We have 
only to enquire what books were then contained in 
the Jewish canon, to be assured in this matter. This 
is a point of testimony on which no difficulty exists. 
It must be observed, however, that the confidence 
placed in the list, or notification, rests entirely upon 
the authenticity of the book that contains it being pre- 
viously ascertained. But if a list of the whole of the in- 
spired books is the only thing that could ascertain with 
sufficient evidence, such as are from God, then no 
man can have a thorough faith in the Scriptures, for 
such a list has not been given. And had it been given, 



NEW TESTAMENT. 



77 



it could not have secured against forgery, as has been 
already noticed, for nothing is easier than for a forger 
to give such a list. Had the Scriptures been a for- 
gery, they would probably have recommended them- 
selves by a very correct list. 

It has been asserted that " the question of the ca- 
non is a point of erudition, not of divine revelation." 
This is to undermine boih the certainty and the im- 
portance of the sacred canon. The assertion, that 
the question of the canon is not a point of revelation^ 
is false. It is not true either of the Old Testament, or 
of the New. The integrity of the canon of the Old 
Testament, is a matter of revelation, as much as any 
thing contained in the Bible. This is attested, as has 
been shown, by the whole nation of the Jews, to whom 
it was committed, and their fidelity to the truth has 
been avouched by the Lord and his Apostles, Is not 
this revelation ? The integrity of the canon of the New 
Testament is equally a point of revelation. As God 
had said to the Jews, " Ye are my witnesses," and as 
they "received the lively oracles to give unto us," Acts 
vii. 38 ; so the Lord Jesus said to the Apostles, " Ye 
shall be witnesses unto me, both in Jerusalem and all 
Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of 
the earth." The first churches received the New Tes- 
tament Scriptures from these witnesses of the Lord, 
and thus had inspired authority for those books. It 
was not left to erudition or reasoning to collect, that 
they were a revelation from God. This the first 
Christians knew from the testimony of those who 
wrote them. They could not be more assured that 
the things taught were from God, than they were that 



78 GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY. 

the writings which contained them were from God. 
The integrity of the sacred canon is, then, a matter 
of revelation, conveyed to us by testimony, like every 
thing contained in the Scriptures. 

While it has been denied that the question of the 
canon is a point of revelation, it has been asserted 
that it is a point of erudition. But erudition has no- 
thing further to do with the question, than as it may 
be employed in conveying to us the testimony. Eru- 
dition did not produce the revelation of the canon. If 
the canon had not been a point of revelation, erudi- 
tion could never have made it so ; for erudition 
can create nothing ; it can only investigate and con- 
firm truth, and testify to that which exists, or detect 
error. We receive the canon of Scripture by reve- 
lation, in the same way that the Jews received the 
law which was given from Mount Sinai. Only one 
generation of the Jews witnessed the giving of the 
law ; but to all the future generations of that peo- 
ple, it was equally a matter of revelation. The know- 
ledge of this was conveyed to them by testimony. In 
the same way, Christians, in their successive genera- 
tions, receive the canon of Scripture as a matter of 
revelation. The testimony through which this is re- 
ceived, must indeed be translated from a foreign lan- 
guage ; but so must the account brought to us of any 
occurrence the most trivial that takes place in a fo- 
reign country. If in this sense the question of the 
canon be called a point of erudition, the gospel itself 
must be called a point of erudition ; for it, too, must 
be translated from the original language in which it 
was announced, as also must every thing which the 



NEW TESTAMENT. 79 

Scriptures contain. When a preacher inculcates the 
belief of the gospel, or of a doctrine of Scripture, or 
obedience to any duty, would he be warranted in tell- 
ing his audience that these are questions of erudition, 
not of divine revelation ? Erudition may be allowed 
its full value, without suspending on it the authority of 
the Word of God. 

The assertion that the question of the canon is a 
point of erudition, not of divine revelation, is subver- 
sive of the whole of revelation. We have no way of 
knowing that the miracles related in the Scriptures 
were wrought, and that the doctrines inculcated were 
taught, but by testimony and the internal evidence of 
the books themselves. We have the evidence of mi- 
racles, as that evidence comes to us by the testimony 
which vouches the authenticity of the inspired books. 
As far as the genuineness and authenticity of any 
book are brought into suspicion, so far is every thing 
contained in it brought into suspicion. For it should 
always be remembered, that there is no greater absurd- 
ity than to question the claim of a book to a place in 
the canon, and at the same time to acknowledge its 
contents to be a revelation from God. There can be 
no evidence that the doctrines of Scripture are reveal- 
ed truths, unless we are certain that the books of 
Scripture are revelation. If the books which com- 
pose the canon are not matter of revelation, then we 
have no revelation. If the truth of the canon be not 
established to us as matter of revelation, then the 
books of which it is composed are not so established ; 
and if the books be not so, then not one sentence of 



80 GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY. 



them, nor one doctrine or precept which they con- 
tain, comes established to us as a revelation from 
God. If then the question of the canon be a point 
of erudition, not of divine revelation, so is every doc- 
trine which the Scriptures contain. For the doctrine 
cannot be assured revelation, if the book that contains 
it be not assured revelation. There can be no higher 
evidence of the doctrine being revelation, than of the 
book that contains it ; and thus were not the canon a 
matter of divine revelation, the whole Bible would be 
stripped of divine authority. Any thing, therefore, 
that goes to unsettle the canon, goes to unsettle every 
doctrine contained in the canon. 

Without a particular revelation to every individual, 
it does not appear that the authority of the canon 
could be ascertained to us in any other way than it is 
at present. The whole of the Scriptures was given 
at first by revelation, and afterwards this revelation 
was confirmed by ordinary means. The testimony 
concerning it has been handed down in the churches 
from one generation to another. On this, and on their 
own internal characteristics of being divine, we re- 
ceive the Scriptures with the most unsuspecting con- 
fidence, and on the same ground, the Jews received 
the Scriptures of the Old Testament. In these ways, 
it is fixed by divine authority, and not left in any un- 
certainty ; for, if its truth can be ascertained by ordi- 
nary means, it is fixed by the authority of God, as 
much as if an angel from heaven were every day to 
proclaim it over the earth. When Paul says, that 
his handwriting of the salutation was the token in 



NEW TESTAMENT. 



81 



every epistle, be at once shows us the importance of 
the canon, and warrants us in receiving it as a divine 
revelation attested by ordinary means. Those to 
whom he wrote had no other way of knowing the 
handwriting of the Apostle than that by which they 
knew any other handwriting. Even at that time the 
churches knew the genuineness of the epistles sent to 
them by ordinary means : and Paul's authority war- 
rants this as sufficient. We have, then, the authority 
of revelation for resting the canon on the ordinary 
sources of human evidence, and they are such as to 
preclude the possibility of deception. The claim of 
the Epistles sent to the first churches, and of the doc- 
trine they contain as divine, rested even to those 
churches on the same kind of evidence on which we 
now receive them. It is very important to settle what 
kind of evidence is sufficient for our receiving the 
Scriptures. Many have rated this too high, and as 
the Scriptures contain a revelation, they wished to 
have them attested to every age by revelation, which 
is, in fact, requiring the continuance of miraculous in- [ 
terference, which it might easily be shown would be \ 
pernicious. 

With respect to the validity of the internal evidence 
on which the canon is received, an important argu- 
ment may be founded on John, iv. 39. From the ac- 
count of the woman of Samaria there related, we 
learn the kind of evidence on which the Lord Jesus 
was acknowledged while on earth. The foundation 
of this woman's faith was the Lord's having told her 
all things that ever she did. This was sufficient for 



82 GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY. 



her to recognise him as a prophet, or as one sent of 
God; and, consequently, when he declared to her 
that he was the Messiah, she had sufficient ground to 
believe so, for God would not enable any one to tell 
her such things in order to deceive. For if there 
was evidence from what he said that he was sent by 
o 2^ God, there was evidence from his assertion that he 
pUi ht-outoi- was Messiah.^ From verse 41 of the same chap- 
9 Cittl tL 'vtuJ 1 * 1 * we ^ earn ? tnat " many more believed because of 
( 7f J^dc^- his own word ;" and that they did so, and that the wo- 
r$j -f^U^ u xxiaii believed, are exhibited to us, not only as facts, but 
as valid grounds of belief. Jesus had not worked any 
miracle, and the reason why they believed on him, is 
expressly stated to be because of his own word. If, 
then, the words of Jesus, unaccompanied by miracle, 
was a sufficient ground of faith when he spoke, it is 
equally valid in writing. From hearing him, the people 
of Samaria could assert, with confidence, that they 
themselves knew that he was indeed the Christ. And 
from reading the Scriptures, the same satisfactory 
^ , evidence is obtained. In reading the Scriptures, we 

^/tl/^^'A are °ft en so struck with their evidence, that, inde- 
Ur.'tiu « * 4 )pendently of any other proof, we firmly believe that 
» lcUa* frrrj . ) they come from God. We are often most forcibly 
/ convinced by evidence which we could hardly state 
' intelligibly to others.* The Apostles still commend 
themselves to every man's conscience, and we feel 
the force of the question, " What is the chaff to the 
wheat, — is not my word like a fire ?" Must, then, the 
illiterate man receive the Scriptures as a question of 
erudition ? Must the canonical authority of an epistle 



NEW TESTAMENT. 



83 



that recommends itself as the light of heaven, depend 
on questions of erudition ? 

Christians receive the Holy Scriptures on the au- 
thority of God, as declared by his inspired messen- 
gers, so that they are received on the ground of re- 
velation. The illiterate are equally bound to receive 
them in this way, and interested in so doing, as the 
learned. As all are to be judged by them, it was ne- 
cessary that all should have full assurance that they 
are from God ; and it is matter of express revelation, 
that nothing but hatred of the light, and the love of 
darkness, prevents any man who reads them from 
receiving the truth. Both the Old Testament and the 
New come to us stamped with the authority of Him 
who is " the brightness of the Father's glory, and the 
express image of his person,'' and of those to whom 
God bore " witness both with signs and wonders, and 
diverse miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost," and 
also with their own internal evidence of being divine. 
And if any portion of them be set aside as uninspired, 
or if any addition be made to them, it is done in spite 
of that authority and that evidence. 

If we displace from the canon any one of those 
books that have been sanctioned by the recognition of 
the Lord Jesus Christ and his Apostles, we overturn 
the authority on which the rest are held, and invite 
the evil propensities of our nature to quarrel with 
any thing in the Bible to which we find a disrelish. 
Those who hold that the question of the canon is open 
to discussion, and who set aside any part of it on the 
ground of either external or internal evidence, cannot 
be said to have a Bible. Their Bible will be longer or 



84 GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY. 

shorter, according to their researches ; and a fixed 
standard they can never have. 

If it be asked, should we be precluded from en- 
quiring into the grounds on which the canon is re- 
ceived, it is replied, certainly not. We ought to en- 
quire into the grounds on which the canon is received, 
as well as into any other subject. But the permanent 
ground on which it stands, is testimony : and such 
must be the ground of every historical fact. Internal 
evidence may confirm the authenticity of a book sanc- 
tioned by the canon, but to suspend belief till we re- 
ceive such confirmation, argues an ignorance of the 
principles of evidence. A book might be inspired, 
when no such internal confirmation, from the nature 
of the subject, might be found. And when a book 
is substantially approved, by testimony, as belonging 
to the canon, no evidence can, by a Christian, be legi- 
timately supposed possible, in opposition to its inspi- 
ration. This would be to suppose valid objections to 
first principles. Sufficient testimony deserves the same 
rank as a first principle, with axioms themselves. Axi- 
oms are not more necessary than testimony, to all the 
business of human life. Internal evidence may be suf- 
ficient to prove that a book is not divine ; but it is ab- 
surd to suppose that such a book can have valid tes- 
timony, and therefore it can never be supposed by a 
Christian, that any of those books that are received 
as part of the sacred canon, on the authority of suf- 
ficient testimony, can contain any internal marks of 
imposture. This would be to suppose the possibility 
of the clashing of two first principles. The thing that 
can be proved by a legitimate first principle, can ne- 



NEW TESTAMENT. 85 

ver be disproved by another legitimate first principle.^ 
This would be to suppose that God is not the author 
of the human constitution. If, then, in a book recog- 
nised by the canon, as the Song of Solomon, we find 
matter which to our wisdom does not appear to be 
worthy of inspiration, we may be assured that we mis- 
take. For if that book is authenticated by testimony 
as a part of the sacred Scriptures, which the Lord Je- 
sus Christ sanctioned, it is authenticated by a first 
principle, to which God has bound us by the consti- 
tution of our nature to submit. If, in this instance, or 
in any particular instance, we reject it, our own con- 
duct in other things will be our condemnation. There 
is no first principle in the constitution of man that can 
enable him to reject any thing in the Song of Solomon, 
comings as it does, under the sanction of a first prin- 
ciple. Those persons who reject any books of the 
canon on such grounds, would show themselves much 
more rational, as well as more humble Christians, if, 
recognising the paramount authority of a first princi- 
ple universally acknowledged, they would receive the 
Song of Solomon and the Book of Esther, or any 
other of the books that they now reject, as parts of 
the Word of God, and humbly endeavour to gain from 
them the instruction and edification which, as divine 
books, they must be calculated to give. This ques- 
tioning of the canon, then, proceeds on infidel and 
irrational principles, which, if carried to their legiti- 
mate length, must end in complete unbelief. 

" According to your way of proceeding," observes 
Augustine, in reference to those who supposed that 



86 GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY. 



the Scriptures had been interpolated or corrupted, 
and the observation is equally applicable to all who 
add to, or reject, certain parts of the sacred canon — 
" According to your way of proceeding, the autho- 
rity of Scripture is quite destroyed, and every one's 
fancy is to determine what in the Scriptures is to be 
received, and what not. He does not admit it, be- 
cause it is found in writings of so great credit and au- 
thority ; but it is rightly written, because it is agree- 
able to his judgment. Into what confusion and un- 
certainty must men be brought by such a principle !" 

It is a wonderful circumstance in the providence 
of God, that while the two parts of Scripture were 
delivered to two classes, with the fullest attestation of 
their divine original, both the one and the other have 
been faithful in preserving the precious trust respective- 
ly committed to them, while they have both been rebel- 
lious in regard to that part of which they were not ori- 
ginally appointed the depositaries. The Jews always 
held the books of the Old Testament in the highest ve- 
neration, and continued to preserve them, without addi- 
tion or diminution, until the coming of Him concerning 
whom they testify, and they have kept them entire to 
this day ; yet they have altogether rejected the New 
Testament Scriptures. And while Christians have all 
agreed in preserving the Scriptures of the New Tes- 
tament entire and uncorrupted, they have wickedly 
adulterated those of the Old by a spurious addition, 
or have retrenched certain portions of them. Of the 
divine original of the Sacred Scriptures, as we now 
possess them, we have evidence the most abundant 




NEW TESTAMENT. 87 

and diversified. It is the distinguishing characteristic 
of the Gospel, that it is preached to the poor, and 
God has so ordered it, that the authenticity of that 
word by which all are to be judged, should not be 
presented to them as a matter of doubtful disputa- 
tion. 



88 



THE INSPIRATION OF 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE HOLY 
SCRIPTURES. 

The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are 
not only genuine and authentic, hut also inspired wri- 
tings. The claim of inspiration which they advance, 
is a claim of infallibility and of perfection. It is also 
a claim of absolute authority, which demands unlimit- 
ed submission. It is a claim which; if set up for any 
other book, might, with the utmost ease, be shown to 
be unfounded. 

The inspiration of the Scriptures is attested, both 
by the nature and value of their contents, and by the 
evidence of their truth. On these grounds, they stand 
without a rival in the world, and challenge from every 
man the highest possible regard. 

Our knowledge of the inspiration of the Bible, like 
every other doctrine it contains, must be collected 
frojn^itself. If the writers of this book appear with 
such credentials as entitle them to be received as com- 
missioned of God, then it is from themselves only 
we can learn those truths which they are authorized 
to make known. Among these, it is of primary im- 
portance to know what is the extent of that depend- 
ence which we are to place on their words. Is im- 
plicit credit to be given to every thing they declare ? 



THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 



89 



and, if the writers are numerous, is this equally due 
to them all ? 

The question of inspiration has been viewed as one 
of the utmost difficulty ; and, accordingly, various 
theories have been invented to explain it. To those 
who consider the subject merely in the light of the 
Bible itself, (the only source of legitimate information 
on any matter of revelation.) it may appear surprising 
that this doctrine should be supposed to present any 
difficulties at all. Nothing can be more clearly, more 
expressly, or more precisely taught in the word of 
God. And while other important doctrines may be 
met with passages of seeming opposition, there is not 
in the language of the Scriptures one expression that 
even appears to contradict their plenary or verbal in- 
spiration. Whence, then, it may be asked, has arisen 
the idea of difficulty so general among the learned, 
but utterly unknown to the great body of Christians. 
It has wholly arisen from a profane desire to pene- 
trate into the manner of the divine operation on the 
mind of man in the communication of revealed truth. 
Instead of coming to the Scriptures in a childlike 
manner, and humbly submitting to what they teach 
on this subject, many have occupied themselves in 
forming a scale for determining how far divine assist- 
ance was afforded to the sacred penmen in the diffe- 
rent parts of their writings ; and, according to almost 
all those who have discussed this subject, some parts 
of Scripture require only a very small degree of di- 
vine assistance. But as the Scriptures assert the in- 
spiration equally of all their parts, these writers are 
obliged to denominate even this slight assistance as a 



90 



THE INSPIRATION OF 



kind of inspiration. Some, accordingly, make three de- 
grees or kinds of inspiration, while others add a fourth. 
To the Superintendence, Elevation, and Suggestion, 
of Doddridge, has been added Direction. And some, 
substantially agreeing in the doctrine of different de- 
grees, quarrel with the terms by which these distinc- 
tions are designated, and for Suggestion, have substi- 
tuted Revelation, as more appropriately expressing the 
highest degree in the scale of inspiration. 

To these speculations, though very generally adopt- 
ed, the writers of the Scriptures give not the slightest 
countenance or support. Such being the fact, and as 
the question of inspiration can only be determined by 
the Scriptures themselves, all the distinctions that 
have been introduced are nothing better than vain and 
unsubstantial theories, unfounded and unsupported by 
any evidence. The Scriptures^contain no intimation 
'^hpt^Aoi*^^^ their being written under an inspiration of any 
icmeA^rt^ifai kind but one. " All Scripture" says Paul, "is given 
p^ujL) ^ £ inspiration of God." This declaration refers to 
4 luoo-cL^b^v^ tne whole of the Old Testament, which Timothy had 
ivuuVjL known from his childhood. But as the greater part 
^JfoUt kik^ oi tne New Testament was at that time published, 
^d-ctvi'OissiecC and a s the whole of it is uniformly classed by its wri- 
ssku^rfvu^ ter§ with the Q ld Testament, this expression of Paul 
^^XT^ ^ eo t ua ^y applies to the New Testament. The Apostle 
^ Ij- Ffu, Peter classes all the Epistles of Paul, which he as- 
IpajLo^bjvWa-; cribes to the wisdom given to him, with " the other 
Pi/y-jlcddc^H^f Scriptures^" thereby declaring them to be of the same 
^H^e^t^> aut h or i t y ? anc i showing that all the writings, both of 
^'^^'^the Old and New Testament, went by the name of 
*w e^u^ 4o " Scriptures. 



THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 



91 



Inspiration belongs to the original writings. No 
one contends for any degree of inspiration in the tran- 
scribers in different ages. Accuracy in the copies 
they have made is, under the providence of God, by 
which he always perfectly attains his purposes, secu- 
red by the fidelity of those to whom the Scriptures 
have been committed — by the opposition of parties 
watching each other, as of- Jews and Christians, and 
of various sects — and by the great multiplication of 
copies and translations into different languages, which 
took place so early. 

The inspiration spoken of in the book of Job, xxxii. 
8, where it is said, " There is a spirit in men, and the 
inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understand- 
ing," appears to refer to the communication of those 
intellectual powers with which man is endowed by 
his Creator. Every Christian has, besides this, an 
unction from the Holy Ghost, who dwelleth in him, 
through whom he was born again, and by whose in- 
fluence his spiritual life is maintained. There have 
also been various miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit 
bestowed on the servants of God, and among these is 
that inspiration, by means of which God has revealed 
himself in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testa- 
ments. 

The word inspire signifies to breathe into, and li- 
terally corresponds to the original in 2 Tim. iii. 16. 
All Scripture is inspired by God> or breathed into the 
writers by God. It is, therefore, of the writing or 
communication that the inspiration is asserted. The 
Greek compound word, corresponding to our phrase 
inspired by God 9 was applied among the heathens to 



92 



THE INSPIRATION OF 



such dreams as were supposed to be breathed into 
men by any of the gods. This inspiration, which, 
without any variation or exception, is claimed by the 
writers of the Scripture, and which entitles the whole 
of it to be denominated " the Word of God," is of the 
highest kind by which they were " led into all truth." 
A^It consists in that communication made to their minds 
j by the Spirit of God, of the ideas and words which 
they have recorded in that sacred book? Paul ex- 
pressly calls the Old Testament Scriptures " the 
Oracles of God," which were committed to the 
Jews. — 'Rom. iii. 2. He afterwards gives the same 
denomination of " oracles" to all the revealed truth 
of God. — Heb. v. 12. The same expression was 
used by the Greeks to denote the responses given 
out in distinct words, which their priests made, in 
name of their deities, to those who consulted them. 
In the same sense, Stephen, speaking under the im- 
mediate influence of the Holy Ghost, refers to what 
the angel spake to Moses on Mount Sinai under the 
appellation of u lively oracles." In this expression 
the verbal inspiration of the whole of the Scriptures 
is distinctly asserted. 

In the passage already quoted, " all Scriptiire is 
given by inspiration of God" the same thing is 
explicitly declared. Here Paul does not say the 
meaning of all Scripture, or the ideas contained in 
it, but all Scripture — all writing, or all that is written 
(taking writing in the appropriated sense in which he 
uses it) is given by inspiration of God. Here then 
we have a most unequivocal testimony to the inspi- 
ration of the words of Scripture, for neither a mean- 



THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 



93 



ing, nor an idea, can be expressed in writing, except 
by words. If any writing is inspired, the words of 
necessity must be inspired, because the words are the 
writing ; for what is a writing, but words written ? 
The thoughts and sentiments are the meaning of the 
words. To say that a writing is inspired, while the 
words are uninspired, is a contradiction in terms. To 
the same purpose, the Apostle Peter affirms, " the 
prophecy came not of old time (at any time) by the 
will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were 
moved by the Holy Ghost." If they spake as they 
were moved, they did not choose the language they t^n^hi 
uttered^ but the words which they spoke were given d^-c^A 
to them by the Holy Ghost. In the same manner /^^^f ^ 
the Disciples, on the day of Pentecost, " were all 
filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak w ^^^^^ 
other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." c^Ao-^c >> 
Here then utterance, or the words they spoke, is ex-^^^«f f ^ 
pressly ascribed to the Holy Spirit. Nothing can 
more distinctly convey the meaning of inspiration^, Juu, far. 
than these words, <c who by the mouth of thy servant ^±^±-^±^ 
David hath said"— Acts, iv. 25. And this inspira- ^~ff ~ ^ 
tion, which without variation or exception is claimed 
for the Scriptures by the sacred writers, entitles the 
whole of them to be called " the word of God" 
which high designation they could not be entitled on^ r ^' ,:u ' 1 ^ 
any other ground. £ u ^ ^ ^ 

The words of Scripture, indeed, as used by the ^ c v s£ 
writers, were their own words, that is, the words, ^^^ ^ 7 ^ 
which they employed. But this does not convey the J/i ^ /j ^ / v 
idea that the Bible is partly the word of God, and* , 1 
partly the word of man. It is not the effect of any^,^ "fito™ 



94 



THE INSPIRATION OF 



such co-operation, as supposes that one part was 
produced by God, and the other part by man, to 
make out a whole. The passages above quoted pre- 
clude our entertaining any such notion. Because the 
words were written by the Prophets and Apostles, 
this does not prevent them from being the words of 
God. The following remarks of President Edwards, 
when he is combating the deeply erroneous senti- 
ment of the Arminians respecting a co-operation be- 
tween God and man in the work of grace, will ex- 
plain this matter. " In efficacious grace we are not 
merely passive, nor yet does God do some, and we 
do the rest. But God does all, and we do all. God 
produces all, and we act all. For that is what he 
produces, viz. our own acts. God is the only pro- 
per author and foundation : we only are the proper 
actors. We are, in different respects, wholly passive 
and wholly active. In the Scriptures the same things 
are represented as from God and from us. God is 
said to convert, and men are said to convert and 
- turn. God makes a new heart, and we are command- 
W-^^^v^ ed to make us a new heart. God circumcises the 
tAjc 4^*Lil*A- heart, and we are commanded to circumcise our own 
TJl^JL L y^ nearts ' not mere ty because we must use the means 
i^tesucl'lo^ouA-m order to the effect, but the effect itself is our act 
'rttA -?U d^^^xA our duty. These things are agreeable to that 

^112^^4 text? 6 God worketh in y° u both to win and to do -' " 

t&'toerci rf$M ,L — Edwards's Remarks, &c. 251. 
^^aiki^T^ij « We grant," says Dr Owen, " thatjthey" (the sacred 
f L/ ^y ^S^i i "// wr * ters ) " used their own a biliti es of mind and under- 
/n/k t^lL^^' standing in the choice of words and expressions^ " So 
£^/^^.^^^the preacher sought to find out acceptable words, 



THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 95 

Eccles. xii. 10. But the Holy Spirit, who is more 
intimate into the minds and skill of men than they are 
themselves, did so guide and operate in them, as that 
the words they fixed upon were as directly and cer- 
tainly from him, as if they had been spoken to them 
by an audible voice." — Owen on the Spirit, Book iL 
ch. i. sect. 20. 

We are not, however, required to suppose, that 
while inspired, the ordinary exercise of the faculties 
of the penmen of the Scriptures was counteracted or 
suspended, or that their minds did not entirely go 
along with what was communicated to them. They 
were all " filled with the Holy Ghost," Acts. xi. 4. 
They " had the mind of Christ," 1 Cor. xi. 15 ; and 
were themselves cast into the mould of that doctrine 
which they delivered to others. We are certain, 
then, as appears from the whole of their writings, that 
as far as they comprehende d the truths which they 
were employed to record , they both fully acquiesced 
in them, and powerfully felt their force. It forms no 
objection to this inspiration, that the w r ords of Scrip- 
ture are occasionally changed in parallel passages or 
quotations, by Him who dictated them. The Holy 
Spirit is not confined to any one mode of expression, 
and in such places his mind is conveyed in words, 
which, though varied by him, are yet perfectly adapt- 
ed to communicate his will. 

Nor does the difference of style which we find 
among these writers at all conclude against their ha- 
ving the words they were to write imparted to them. 
The style that God was pleased to employ was used, 
and the instruments were such as that style was na- 



96 



THE INSPIRATION OF 



tural to, flowing, like the words, with their fall con- 
sent, and according to the particular tone of their 
minds, while they yielded to the impression as volun- 
tary and intelligent agents. The Holy Spirit could 
dictate to them his own words in such a way that 
they would also be their words, uttered with the un- 
derstanding. He could speak the same thought by 
the mouth of a thousand persons, each in his own 
style. Is it then because we cannot comprehend the 
mode of such an operation, that arrogant and weak 
mortals dare to deny the obvious import of Scripture 
declarations ? 

The objection to verbal inspiration, taken from 
the variety of style among the sacred writers, though 
at first sight it may seem plausible, is, in reality, both 
unfounded and absurd. It is taking it for granted 
that two or more accounts of the same thing differ- 
ing in phraseology, though substantially agreeing, 
cannot all be the words of inspiration, which has 
not the smallest foundation in truth. If variety of ex- 
pression in relating the same things in the Gospel, 
would not affect the truth of the narrative, on the sup- 
position that the writers were uninspired men, why 
is it presumed that it would affect it on the supposi- 
tion of their being inspired ; and why should it be 
thought improper for the Holy Ghost to make use 
of that variety ? Or, because one peculiar cast of 
style distinguishes every man's writings, is it thought 
impossible that the Spirit of God can employ a va- 
riety of styles ; or is it supposed that He must be con- 
fined to one single mode of expression ? The simple 
statement of such an idea contains its refutation. It 



THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 97 

is evident, too, that variety of style militates no more 
against verbal inspiration, than against the supposed 
inspiration of superintendence ; for if the Holy Spirit 
sanctioned variety, it was equally consistent to dictate , 
variety. And it might be shown that such variety is - 
of essential importance in the Gospel narratives in 
bringing out very interesting views, that could not be 
so well exhibited in a single narrative. ^ 

Of the fact, however, that the variety of style which 
is found among the writers of the Scriptures does not 
in the smallest degree militate against that verbal in- 
spiration by which they affirm that they wrote, we g 
have conclusive proof. For while it is evident to all,' 
that there is a certain characteristic distinction of style, 
that pervades the whole of the Scriptures, and suffi- . 
ciently attests that they are the work of the same t 
author, it is equally certain that each one of the wri- 
ters is distinguished from the rest by a style peculiar - 
to himself. Now the difference of style is as great among 
the prophets, when predicting future events, which they 
did not understand, where, as is admitted by all, the 
words they employed must necessarily have been com- 
municated to thcm 9 nsh is found to be among them when 
relating events with which they were previously ac- 
quainted. Here, then, we have positive proof on this 
subject, which it is impossible to set aside. The objec- 
tion, too, that is founded on variety of style, to the 
communication of words, would equally militate against 
the communication of ideas. There is as great diver- 
sity of modes of thought, and of viewing their 
subjects, as of expression and style, among the 
writers of Scripture. And can it for a moment be 

G 



98 



THE INSPIRATION OF 



supposed, that either as to the one or the other, the 
Spirit of God is limited ? " He that planted the ear, 
shall he not hear ? He that formed the eye, shall he 
not see ?" " Who hath made man's mouth, or who 
maketh the dumb, or the deaf, or the seeing, or 
the blind, did not I the Lord ?" He who conferred 
upon men all the varied powers and faculties which 
they possess, is he not able to communicate to their 
minds whatever seems to him good, in every possi- 
ble variety of expression, and in every conceivable 
shape ? 

It has been objected, that if the verbal inspiration 
of the whole of the Scriptures could be proved, it 
would follow, that the words of all the speakers who 
are introduced in them, such as those of Job's friends, 
although their opinions were erroneous, nay even the 
words of the devil himself, were inspired. This ob- 
jection is so absurd, that unless it had been sometimes 
gravely urged, it would be too trifling to be noticed. 
Is it not sufficiently plain, that while God dictated to 
the sacred penmen the words of those referred to, he 
'A> $*^ated tnem t0 De inserted, not as_fo's words, but as 
^A^^ their jwords P^Every thing contained in the Bible, whe- 
/^^o^^her the words of the penmen, that contain the mind 
pvujrt* Q f Q 0( ] ? or the words of others, that are inserted 
for the purpose of giving such information as he is 
"~ ^ pleased to impart, is equally, according to the express 
^cru,fj^ declarations of Scripture, dictated by God. It should, 
^* however, be observed, that it is not at all implied in the 

assertion of plenary verbal inspiration, that every ex- 
ample recorded in Scripture, without any judgment 
expressed with regard to the conduct of good, or even 



THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 



99 



inspired men, should be for imitation. 'When the 
Word of God records human conduct, without pro- 
nouncing on . its 'morality, whether it is sin or duty 
must be ascertained by an appeal to the general prin- 
ciples of Scripture. 

It is no valid objection to verbal inspiration, that 
the sacred writers were often acquainted beforehand 
with those facts which they recorded, and that they 
were directed to refer to this knowledge to establish 
their credibility. This no more proves that their re- 
lating these facts originated with themselves, than the 
previous knowledge of a messenger of the contents of 
the message he bears, proves that it originated with 
himself, or detracts from its truth or authority. Nor 
does it form any objection that the penmen of Scrip- 
ture often appeal, in support of what they advance, 
to its own evidence, or that they reason from princi- 
ples granted by those whom they addressed. This 
was practised by the Lord himself, as to whose words 
no Christian will affirm that they are not the words 
of God. 

There is a simplicity^ harmony, and consistency, in 
that plan which represents the Scriptures as, in one 
point of view, the production of man, and in another 
wholly the book of God. This is precisely consistent 
with the language of the Apostle Paul, when he 
sometimes designates the Gospel, " my Gospel," and 
sometimes, " the Gospel of God," it being, in fact, 
both the one and the other. Though the deepest wis- 
dom of man could never have anticipated such a 
scheme of inspiration, yet, when it is submitted to the 
mind, it manifests itself to be divine. And nothing 



100 



THE INSPIRATION OF 



but this view will harmonize all the assertions of the 
Scriptures. 

The subject of the inspiration of the Bible has been 
too much disregarded among Christians ; many have 
not attended to it at all, while others have ventured 
to indulge in vain speculations respecting it. But like 
every other doctrine, the nature of divine inspiration 
ought to be carefully enquired into, and the truth re- 
specting it received with the most unreserved sub- 
mission. It will be proper, then, to consider it sole- 
ly in the light which the Word of God affords ; and for 
this purpose, after attending to the objections that 
have been derived from erroneous views of the mean- 
ing of certain passages of Scripture, to exhibit the 
ample proofs contained in the sacred record, which 
unequivocally substantiate its own plenary inspiration 
in every part, without one single exception. 

The inspiration of certain parts of the Scriptures 
is frequently denied, on the supposition that the 
Apostles themselves " sometimes candidly admit, that 
they are not speaking by inspiration." This objection 
proceeds on a mistaken view of the meaning of the 
passages on which it is founded. 

In the 7th chapter of the 1st Epistle to the Co- 
rinthians, the Apostle Paul is supposed, in some places, 
to disclaim inspiration, and, in one place, not to be 
certain whether he is inspired or not. This, at first 
sight, will appear to be evidently contrary to the uni- 
form style of this Apostle's writings, and altogether 
improbable, when, as a commissioned and accredited 
ambassador of Jesus Christ, he is answering certain 
questions put to him by a Christian church, to whom 



THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 101 

he had just before in the most explicit manner assert- 
ed, that he spoke " not in the words which man's 
wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teach- 
eth ;" and that he was addressing them " in the name 
of the Lord Jesus/' 1 Cor. ii. 13, and v. 4. Atten- 
tion to these things might have prevented the adop- 
tion of the unfounded and mistaken meaning that 
has been affixed to the passages referred to, which 
tends to unsettle the minds of Christians respecting 
the inspiration of the Scriptures. No such indecision, 
however, attaches to the passages in question. 

In answer to the question about marriage, Paul 
says, 1 Cor. vii. 6, " I speak this by permission, and 
not of commandment." Does this mean, that the Spi- 
rit permitted him, but did not command him, to give 
the answer he bad done ? Even upon this supposition, 
the Apostle's declaration must be according to the mind 
of the Spirit ; for Paul could not, on such an occasion, 
have been permitted to say what was contrary to it. 
But this would have been a very extraordinary and 
unusual mode of communicating that mind, and evi- 
dently is not what is here intended. The obvious 
meaning is, that what the Apostle here said was in 
the way of permission, not of commandment. " I 
speak this," says he, " as a permission, and not as a 
commandment ;" and without this, the Apostle might 
have been understood as enjoining marriage as an in- 
dispensable duty/ In the second epistle to the same 
church, chap. viii. 8, the Apostle expresses himself 
to the same purpose, in a passage which no one mis- 
understands. Again, at the 10th verse — " Unto the 
married I command, yet not I, but the Lord." This 



\ 102 THE INSPIRATION OF 

\ commandment had been delivered by the Lord Jesus 
\ Christ himself. The Apostle, therefore, had no new 
^^^'^\ commandment to deliver to them, or no command- 
lu< ajr^ujh&nwft from himself only, but one which the Lord had 
^^^^^^Viven. « To the rest," says he, u speak I, not the 
*^J^,^fj* Ju r( | # " There was no former commandment given 
^^$2 y/^^hy\the Lord, to which he might here refer them 1 ; on 
J*:fi>t*J m3 thisVoint, therefore, he now delivers to them the will 
a ^* L 9 _ \^ °f God. So far, indeed, was this commandment from 
f ^Iz^^ti^ 1iaving\been given before, that it was the repeal of an 
^/jU wth old one\by which, under the Jewish dispensation, the 
? people were commanded to put away their wives, if 
ne athens.^Can it, then, be supposed, that the Apostle 
bn^Tfcy -A*t '- is speaking from himself, and not under the dictation 
^a^^^^'^of the Holy Ghost, when he is declaring the abroga- 

) y tion of a ? art of the law of God ? 

\z/L " Now, concerning virgins, I have no command- 
cl jU.<*Lj-4f nient of the Lord ; yet I give my judgment as one 
that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful." 
Here again no commandment had formerly been given, 
to which Paul could refer those to whom he wrote. 
But now, he gave his judgment as one that had ob- 
tained mercy of the Lord to be faithful in the discharge 
of that ministry which he had received, to deliver the 
, : ( luct^ whole counsel of God to man. "I think also that I 
^Jbave the Spirit of God." In this, as in many other 
ttc^^oU^'l passages, the word translated, "I think,"* does not 

f t~ JaaAjzI^ * " On 1 Cor. vii. 40, Wolfius remarks, that the v. $o%oo im- 
laiyu^-d. froMf - ports not an uncertain opinion, hut conviction and knowledge, 
^ ^ as John, v. 39. So in Xenophon, Cyropeed., at the end of the 
^~!/y£>/w^£P roem > H < r Q< r ® YiUl AOKOTMEN, expresses assurance, not doubt." 
uJLfy^ — Parkhurst. r 



/Hie 



THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 



mean doubting, but certainty. If Paul meant it to 
be understood, that he was not certain whether he 
was inspired or not, it would contradict all he has so 
often positively declared, in the same Epistle, on the 
subject of his inspiration, both before the expression 
in question, and afterwards, when he says, chap, xiv, 
37, " If any man think himself to be a prophet, or 
spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I 
icrite unto you are the commandments of the Lord" 
And it would stand directly opposed to what he af- 
firms, 1 Thess. iv. 8, " He, therefore, that despiseth, 
despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto 
us his Holy Spirit/' But so far is this from being 
the case, that in order more deeply to impress the 
minds of those to whom he wrote, with the import- 
ance of what he had said, Paul concludes by assuring 
them, that he was certain that he wrote by the Spirit 
of God. 

The only other passage in which this Apostle is 
supposed to disclaim inspiration occurs in 2 Cor. xi. 
17 : — " That which I speak, I speak it not after the 
Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of 
boasting." In this passage Paul does not refer to the 
authority, but to the example, of the Lord. " I speak 
not according to the example or manner of the Lord, 
but after the manner of fools :"^a manner which, as 
he tells the Corinthians in the next chapter, they had 
compelled him to adopt. Such is the true sense of 
the above passages ; but even if the mistaken meaning 
that is so often attributed to them, were the just one, 
they would not at all militate against the plenary in- 
spiration of the Scriptures, because in that case Paul 

ot fc^ies-, ^ r,l~- rtA 

'.-re,/ Vy^/^W; c*«? v^^/tx/vw^/ fifrc£*tc<, M^t A* ^IcJsfc A 



104 



THE INSPIRATION OF 



must be viewed as having been inspired to write pre- 
cisely as he has done, since they form a part of Scrip- 
ture, all of which is given by inspiration of God. 

Another passage in the Second Epistle of Peter, i. 
19, is frequently quoted, so as to invalidate the Apos- 
tolic testimony. Peter had just before declared, that 
on the mount of transfiguration, he and the other 
Apostles had been eye-witnesses of the majesty of 
Jesus Christ, and had heard the voice from heaven, 
which attested that he was the beloved Son of God. 
Yet, after this, he is supposed to refer Christians to 
the word of prophecy, as " more sure" than this tes- 
timony. Instead of this, which is evidently a very 
improper view of the passage, degrading to the testi- 
mony of the Apostles, (than which there is nothing 
in heaven, or on earth, more absolutely certain,) he 
refers to the prophecies, now made " more firm" or 
" confirmed" by what they had witnessed.* 

Two passages are quoted from Paul's First Epis- 
tle to Timothy, v. 23, " Drink no longer water, but 
use a little wine for thy stomach's sake, and thine 
often infirmities." And 2 Tim. iv. 13, " The cloak 
that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, 
bring with thee, and the books, but especially the 
parchments." These passages, it is supposed, are of 



* " He," the Apostle, " does not oppose," says Wetstein, 
" the prophetic word to fables, or to the transfiguration seen 
by himself. .... But the prophetic word is more firm now, 
as it has been confirmed by the event, than it was before the 
event. So the Greek interpreters understood the passage."—^ 
Parkhurst. 



THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 105 

so unimportant a nature, that they cannot be the dic- 
tates of inspiration. Such a conclusion, even if we 
could not discover their use, would be altogether un- 
warrantable. On the same principle we might reject 
many other parts of Scripture, the import of which 
we do not understand ; but in doing so, we should 
act both as absurdly and irreverently as the daring 
infidel, who might assert that a worm or a mushroom 
was not the workmanship of God, because it ap- 
peared to him insignificant ; or that the whole world 
was not created by God, because it contained deserts 
and barren wastes, the use of which he could not com- 
prehend. 

In reference to the above passages, Dr Doddridge 
makes the following remarks : " There are other ob- 
jections of a quite different class, with which I have 
no concern ; because they affect only such a degree of 
inspiration, as I think it not prudent and I am sure 
it is not necessary, to assert. I leave them therefore 
to be answered by those, if any such there be, who 
imagine that Paid would need an immediate Revela- 
tion from Heaven, and a miraculous dictate of the 
Holy Ghost, to remind Timothy of the cloak and wri- 
tings which he left at Troas, or to advise him to 
mingle a little ivine with his ivater? ,% Modern wri- 
ters on inspiration have likewise singled out these two 
passages, together with the shipwreck of Paul on the 
island of Melita, as uninspired, because they conceive 
that " these were not things of a religious nature." 



* Dissertation on the Inspiration of the New Testament, 
in Appendix to the Harmony of the Evangelists, p. 58. 



106 



THE INSPIRATION OF 



Respecting the account of the Apostle's shipwreck, 
there are few things to be found in the historical parts 
of the Bible that are more truly valuable, whether we 
consider the delightful and encouraging views it af- 
fords of the providential dealings of the Lord in every 
circumstance of the life of his people, or attend to the 
unparalleled illustration it furnishes of the manner by 
which the purposes of God are, in the use of means, 
carried into effect. Nothing could be more worthy 
of inspiration than the recording of this portion of 
Scripture ; and so far from not being of a religious 
nature, the account it contains is fraught with the 
most important religious instruction. As to the ob- 
jection that is founded on the two passages in the 
Epistles to Timothy, it being both commonly made, 
and resorted to as one of the strongholds of those who 
oppose the verbal inspiration of the whole of Scrip- 
ture, it requires to be examined at some length. In- 
stead of being so trifling as to render them unworthy 
to be a part of divine Revelation, they present consi- 
derations of very high interest. 

In the first of these passages, it is said, " Drink no 
longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's 
sake, and thine often infirmities." A due considera- 
tion of the nature of the office of Paul, who gave this 
injunction to Timothy, and of the Epistle in which it 
is contained, as a part of the oracles of God, as well 
as of the service in which Timothy was engaged, ought 
to have deterred any one from rashly concluding that 
this verse forms no part of the words of inspiration. 
The connexion, too, in which it is found, embodied 
in one of the most solemn addresses to be met with 



THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 107 



in the Scriptures, assures us that it must contain some- 
thing of importance. " I charge thee before God, and 
the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that 
thou observe these things, without preferring one be- 
fore another, doing nothing by partiality. Lay hands 
suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other mens 
sins : keep thyself pure* Drink no longer water, but 
use a little xoinefor thy stomach's sake, and thine of- 
ten infirmities. Some men's sins are open beforehand, 
going before to judgment ; and some men they follow 
after. Likewise also the good works of some are ma- 
nifest beforehand ; and they that are otherwise cannot 
be hid!' Can it be imagined that, — in the midst of an 
address, in which, if the language of inspiration is to 
be found in the Bible ; the Apostle is speaking by it, — 
before the charge is completed, which contains a per- 
manent law in the kingdom of Christ, the course of 
that inspiration is suddenly interrupted, and broken 
in upon, by a remark merely human, " not of a re- 
ligious nature" — by an advice, which, originating with 
the Apostle, might not be judicious ? On the contrary, 
being fully assured that the verse in question is, like 
the other parts of the charge that precede and follow 
it, dictated by the Divine Spirit, we are prepared to 
regard it as containing what is worthy of its author, 
and deserving of our attention. Proceeding, then, 
to examine it, under the settled conviction that it is 
given by inspiration of God, and that it is profitable 
for instruction in righteousness, I observe, That while 
enjoining upon Timothy many arduous and laborious 
duties, the Apostle was inspired to admonish him 
to attend to his health, in order to fit him for their 



108 



THE INSPIRATION OF 



right discharge ; and hence Timothy was taught, and 
we learn, that it is the duty of every man to have a 
regard for his health, even amidst the most important 
labours, in order that he may be more fitted for the 
service of God, and that his life may be prolonged in 
that service. 

2. We learn the abstemiousness of Timothy, not- 
withstanding his bodily weakness, and abundant la- 
bours. 

3. That his abstemiousness was even carried the 
length of an unnecessary austerity, and that although 
he had a good end in view, this over-abstemiousness 
was wrong, and was therefore corrected by the Apos- 
tle. Hence, we learn how apt we are to err, even 
when our intentions are good, and how necessary it 
is to receive direction from the Lord. 

4. If Timothy was in an error respecting the law- 
fulness of using wine, that error is here corrected ; but 
whether this was the case or not, it was a matter of 
importance to instruct believers on this point, on 
which, as it appears from Rom. xiv. 21, a diversity 
of opinion existed in the churches. The lawfulness 
of the use of wine was denied by the Essenes, a sect 
among the Jews, as was afterwards the case with 
different Christian sects. This error may have been 
imbibed by them, or confirmed by the law of the Na- 
zarites, or from a partial attention to the manner in 
which the Rechabites, who abstained from wine, were 
held up as an example of obedience to the people of 
Israel. In this view of the passage, it contains a most 
salutary and necessary corrective of what might other- 
wise have become extensively prejudicial in the king- 



THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 1G9 

dom of Christ ; and it proves a useful comment, in 
the way of warning, on what the Apostle had said a 
little before, concerning a defection that was to take 
place in the latter times, in which false teachers were 
to command men to abstain from meats which God 
had created, to be received with thanksgiving, chap, 
iii. 3. 

5. Use " a little wine." Here we are instructed in 
the duty of temperance. We are taught to use the boun- 
ties of Providence with moderation, and in subordina- 
tion to our sustenance and bodily health. 

6. If the error of those who live too abstemiously, 
so as to hurt their health, be here corrected ; howmuch 
more does this passage condemn those who exceed 
in a contrary extreme, and who impair their consti- 
tutions by intemperance ! 

7. From this passage, as from some others, e. g. 
Phil. ii. 27, we learn that the Apostles had it not in 
their power on every occasion, even when they might 
be desirous of it, to work miraculous cures, and that 
the gift of healing, at that time vouchsafed, did not 
preclude the use of means for the preservation of 
health. 

8. This passage sanctions the medical profession. 
This is very important, as some Christians have been 
inclined to think, that to have recourse to a physician 
is to supersede the interposition of God. Now, the 
prescription of Paul to Timothy was a medical pre- 
scription, founded on the fitness of the medicinal qua- 
lities of wine. Christians ought, indeed, to look to 
God for their cure, so ought they for the nourish- 
ment of their bodies, for man does not live by bread 



110 



THE INSPIRATION OF 



alone, but both food and medicine are to be taken as 
the means appointed by God, as we here learn. 

The other passage referred to, occurs in Paul's Se- 
cond Epistle to Timothy, ch. iv. 13, " The cloak 
that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest 
bring with thee, and the books, but especially the 
parchments." This passage, like the former, is in- 
troduced in the midst of very solemn considerations, 
in connexion with an annunciation of the Apostle 
Paul's trial for his life, and in the immediate prospect 
of his martyrdom. In his desire to have his cloak 
brought to him from a distance, a proof is recorded 
at the close of his ministry, of Paul's disinterestedness 
in his labours among the churches. We are here re- 
minded of his resolution, and are taught how faith- 
fully he adhered to it, to make the gospel of God 
without charge ; and in the peculiar circumstances 
in which he was placed, not to abuse his power of 
receiving support in preaching the Gospel, or to allow 
his glorying on the ground of his disinterestedness to 
be made void, 1 Cor. ix. 13-18. On the approach 
of winter, in a cold prison, and at the termination of 
his course, the Apostle Paul appears here to be a 
follower indeed of him who had not where to lay his 
head. He is presented to our view as actually en- 
during those hardships, which elsewhere he describes 
in a manner so affecting — " in prisons, — in cold, in 
nakedness." He had abandoned, as he elsewhere in- 
forms us, all the fair prospects that once opened to 
him of worldly advantages, for the excellency of the 
knowledge of Christ, and had suffered the loss of all 
things ; and in this Epistle we see all that he has said 



THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 



Ill 



on the subject, embodied and verified. He is about 
to suffer death for the testimony of Jesus ; and now 
he requests one of the few friends that still adhered 
to him, (all the others, as he tells us, having forsaken 
him,) to do his diligence to come before winter, and 
to bring to him his cloak. Here, in his solemn fare- 
well address, of which the verse before us forms a 
part, — the last of his writings, and which contains a 
passage of unrivalled grandeur, — the Apostle of the 
Gentiles is exhibited in a situation deeply calculated 
to affect us. We behold him standing upon the con- 
fines of the two worlds, — in this world about to be be- 
headed, as guilty, by the Emperor of Rome,— in the 
other world to be crowned, as righteous, by the King 
of kings,— here deserted by men, there to be wel- 
comed by angels, — here in want of a cloak to cover 
him, there to be clothed upon with his house from 
heaven ! 

Dr Doddridge, in his commentary on the passage 
before us, has the following note. ({ Bring with thee 
that cloak. If pgAawji here signifies cloak, or mantle, 
it is, as Grotius justly observes, a proof of Paul's po- 
verty, that he had occasion to send so far for such a 
garment, which probably was not quite a new one." 
Since, as we here learn, this observation of Grotius 
appeared just to Dr Doddridge, it might have pre- 
vented him from rashly treating the subject with the 
levity which appears in his remark, formerly quoted, 
and from thinking it not " prudent" to assert, that 
the text was dictated by the Holy Spirit. The ob- 
servation of Grotius to which he refers, is as follows : 
i; See the poverty of so great an Apostle, who con- 



112 



THE INSPIRATION OF 



sidered so small a matter, left at such a distance, to 
be a loss to him !" On the same place, Erasmus re- 
marks : " Behold the Apostle's household furniture, 
a cloak to defend him from rain, and a few books I" 
Here, then, we are reminded incidentally (a manner 
of instruction common in the Word of God) of Paul's 
poverty. In the low, distressed circumstances of the 
Apostles, we see the Lord's warnings, as to the re- 
ception they were to meet with from the world, 
and the hardships and privations they were to ex- 
perience, fully verified. The evidence of the truth 
of the Gospel, which arises from the suffering con- 
dition of those who were first employed to propagate 
it, is calculated to produce on our minds the strong- 
est conviction of its divine origin. In the wisdom of 
God it appears to have been appointed for this end ; 
and it is all along kept in view, in the accounts trans- 
mitted in the Scriptures concerning them. " I think 
that God hath set forth us the Apostles the last, as 
it were appointed to death : for we are made a spec- 
tacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men. — 
Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and 
thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no 
certain dwelling-place." 1 Cor. iv. 9-11. 

Paul also desires Timothy to bring with him the 
" books, but especially the parchments." Whatever 
these parchments were, the use that Paul intended 
to make of them would be well known to Timothy, 
and in it he might have a further example of the 
Apostle's zeal, and unwearied exertion in the service 
of God. By this passage we may be taught, that even 
those who were so highly favoured with the most 



THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 113 

distinguished gifts, were not raised above the neces- 
sity of using means for their own improvement, and 
for the stirring up of those gifts that were in them ; 
and if this was the case respecting them, how forci- 
bly is the duty here inculcated upon us, to give dili- 
gence to retain the knowledge of divine things which 
we may already possess, and to seek to add to our 
present attainments, whatever we may suppose them 
to be ! We are certain that they were not useless 
books, which the Apostle required to be brought to 
him at such a time, and from so great a distance. 
They must have been intended to be profitable to 
himself, or in some way to be turned to the advance- 
ment of that cause, to promote which was his only 
desire, and for which he was now about to suffer. In 
any, or all of these views, the contents of this verse 
may convey instruction, and afford an example to us ; 
and at any rate we can no more conceive that the course 
of inspiration is here interrupted, without the smallest 
intimation to this effect, (of which an example in the 
whole Bible cannot be produced,) than we can be- 
lieve it was the case concerning the verse which we 
formerly considered. 

In the former of the above passages, we observe 
Paul evincing his kindness and sympathy, and attend- 
ing to the wants of a fellow labourer ; in the latter, to 
his own wants. Is there any thing in either of them 
beneath the dignity of Divine Revelation ? In pre- 
scribing, by his Apostle, the use of wine, which he 
would bless for the re-establishment of the health of 
Timothy, the Lord acted in the same manner as when 
he directed his Prophet to order the application of 

H 



114 



THE INSPIRATION OF 



" a lump of figs," for the cure of King Hezekiah. 
Was it beneath the dignity of Him who turned water 
into wine at a marriage feast, to order the use of wine 
for the preservation of Timothy's health, instead of 
the use of water ? Was this unworthy of that Lord 
who had condescended so far to the indulgence of the 
feelings of his people, as to cause it to be engrossed 
in his law, that the man who had planted a vineyard, 
and had not eaten of it, should not go out to war, 
lest he should die in the battle ? Deut. xx. 6. 

So far from there being any thing in these passages 
beneath the dignity of a revelation from God, or un- 
worthy of his character, they are entirely consistent 
with the one, and strikingly illustrative of the other. 
And it is only when we consider them, not as the 
word of man, but as " the word of God" that we dis- 
cover their beauty and their use. It is God himself 
who there speaks. He who is the high and lofty One 
that inhabiteth eternity, condescends to the weakness 
and to the wants of his servants. Nothing that in- 
terests them escapes his notice. The hairs of their 
head are all numbered, and the smallest circumstance 
of their lot is ordered by the providence of God. 
What a striking illustration do these two passages af- 
ford, of those affecting considerations which Jesus 
presented to his disciples, Luke, xii. 22-30, in order 
to withdraw their minds from the cares and anxieties 
to which they are so prone to yield during their earthly 
pilgrimage ! Viewing these verses in this light, as the 
words of God himself can any thing be more adapted 
to foster the spirit of adoption, or to lead us to cry, 
Abba, Father ? And should they be expunged from 



THE HOLY 



SCRIPTURES. 



115 



the Sacred Record, as incompatible with the idea we 
ought to form of inspiration, and unworthy of proceed- 
ing from God ? But it is at such passages as these 
that the blind infidel scoffs, while the injudicious or 
ill-instructed Christian considers them as useless, and 
converts them into an argument against the plenary 
inspiration of the Scriptures. 

On the same principle that the admonition to Ti- 
mothy, to drink no longer water, but to use a little 
wine for the benefit of his health, is rejected as un- 
worthy of verbal inspiration, ought not the truth of 
the miracle wrought at the marriage at Cana in Ga- 
lilee, of turning water into wine, to be denied, and 
the occasion deemed unworthy of miraculous inter- 
position ; and especially of its being exhibited as the 
first of the miracles of Jesus ? Shall we be told that 
it also was a " thing not of a religious nature," that it 
was not worthy to be recorded by the pen of inspira- 
tion, that it is not "prudent" to speak of such a pas- 
sage as inspired ; or to admit with those, " if any such 
there be, icho imagine' that Jesus first manifested forth 
his glory, by turning a little water into wine ? 

The levity, not to say the profaneness, of this man- 
ner of treating the Holy Scriptures, ought to be held 
in abhorrence. Their paramount authority, and their 
unity as the Word of God, are thus set aside. The 
Bible is converted into another book ; and a new re- 
velation, were such licentious principles of interpre- 
tation admitted, would become indispensable to teach 
the humble Christian, who takes it for " a lamp unto 
his feet, and a light unto his path,'' — what portion of 
it he is to consider as from God, and what portion 



116 



THE INSPIRATION OF 



as from man, — what parts of it are of " a religious 
nature," from which he may derive edification, and 
in which he may converse with God, — and what parts 
relate only to " common or civil affairs," with which 
he has no concern, and respecting which it would not 
be 'prudent to speak of them as inspired. If, in this 
manner, inspiration is first denied to the words, and 
next to such things as are supposed not to be " of a 
religious nature," the progress to the non-inspiration 
of whole books of Scripture is perfectly easy and na- 
tural ; and, if whole books are rejected, then, both 
the authenticity and inspiration of the whole of the 
Scriptures are subverted. For, if the canon has ad- 
mitted one uninspired book, there is no security that 
it has not admitted more ; and if that canon has been 
recognised by Jesus Christ with one uninspired book, 
every book in the collection may be uninspired, not- 
withstanding that recognition. If the Apostle Paul 
has asserted the inspiration of the whole volume, while 
one book is uninspired, no book in the volume can be 
received on his authority. The discovery, in like man- 
ner, of one single passage in the Scriptures not dic- 
tated by the Holy Ghost, would make void the de- 
claration, that " all Scripture is given by inspiration 
of God," and would render inspiration necessary to 
tell us what part of it is inspired, and what is not. 
According to those writers who deny the doctrine of 
plenary inspiration, we have not the pure Word of 
God ; for much that we have under that designation, 
is solely the word of man. 

Let those who treat the Scriptures in this manner 
pause, and review the principles on which they are 



THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 



117 



proceeding ; and let them not perplex " plain Chris- 
tians" with their rash and unhallowed speculations. 
The great body of believers receive, with implicit cre- 
dence, the whole contents of the Bible, as the oracles 
of God ; — they venture not either to add to it, or to 
take from it. Convinced that it is the book of God, 
they treat even those parts of it which they do not 
understand with humble reverence ; and in them is ful- 
filled what is written, Math. xi. 25, while the fancied 
wisdom and knowledge of many learned critics has 
perverted them. Isaiah, xlvii. 10. Those who, in the 
spirit of little children, read in the Epistles of Paul to 
Timothy, that " all Scripture is given by inspiration 
of God," will not easily be induced to believe, that 
in the very same Epistles the Apostle has contradicted 
his own declaration, and has afforded at least two ex- 
amples of the fallacy and unsoundness of what he had, 
almost in the same breath, so solemnly affirmed. And 
it is upon the general ground of these passages being 
found in Scripture, independently of the meaning 
which may be affixed to them, that we denounce the 
profane manner in which they have been treated, and 
hold them to be a portion of the Word of God. It 
was in this light that Origen, who was born towards 
the end of the second century, viewed those parts of 
Scripture as inspired, of which he was not able to 
discover the use. The following are his words, when 
quoting Mark, x. 50 : " Shall we say that the Evange- 
list wrote without thought, when he related the man's 
casting away his garment, and leaping and coming to 
Jesus ? and shall we dare to say that these things 
were inserted in the Gospels in vain ? For my part, 



118 



THE INSPIRATION OF 



I believe that not one jot or tittle of the Divine in- 
struction is in vain.— We are never to say that there 
is any thing impertinent or superfluous in the Scrip- 
tures of the Holy Spirit, though to some they may 
seem obscure. But we are to turn the eyes of our mind 
to Him who commanded these things to be written, 
and seek of Him the interpretation of them. — The 
sacred Scriptures come from the fulness of the Spi- 
rit ; so that there is nothing in the Prophets, or the 
Law, or the Gospel, or the Apostles, which descends 
not from the fulness of the Divine Majesty." " Well 
knowing," says Irenaeus, " that the Scriptures are 
perfect, as dictated (or spoken) by the Word of God 
and his Spirit — a heavy punishment awaits those who 
add to, or take from, the Scriptures." 

The inspiration of Luke, in writing the account of 
Paul's shipwreck, and that of Paul, in writing for his 
cloak, stand upon the same foundation as their inspi- 
ration in recording the plan of salvation. But even 
if it were true, as many ignorantly suppose, that Paul, 
in his seventh chapter of the first Epistle to the Co- 
rinthians, guards against the idea of his inspiration 
in the cases there referred to, then every thing is to 
be taken as inspired, when he gives no such intima- 
tion ; and consequently his message about the cloak 
and parchments, and his medical advice to Timothy, 
would have their claim to inspiration fully authenti- 
cated, even in the view of those persons who pervert 
the meaning of that chapter. 

Some who are satisfied as to the inspiration of all 
the other parts of the New Testament Scriptures, are 
doubtful concerning the inspiration of the three books 



THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 



119 



written by Mark and Luke, who were not Apostles. 
From early accounts concerning these disciples, it 
is reckoned by many that they were among the se- 
venty whom Jesus sent out in Judea. We know for 
certain, that they respectively accompanied Peter and 
Paul in their journeys, and they are mentioned by these 
two Apostles with much regard. The Apostles not 
only received the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit, 
but by laying on their hands imparted these gifts to 
other disciples. When Peter went down to Samaria, 
he laid his hands on the disciples there, who then re- 
ceived the Holy Ghost. When Paul wrote to the 
Christians at Rome, he informed them that he long- 
ed to see them, that he might impart to them some 
spiritual gift. Paul had communicated a gift to Ti- 
mothy, whom he employed, as he also did Titus, in 
directing the churches in his absence. " I put thee 
in remembrance, that thou stir up the gift of God 
which is in thee, by the putting on of my hands." By 
means of these gifts, those who possessed them were 
enabled to speak in languages they had never learned, 
and some of them to speak, by " revelation," the mind 
of God. There can be no reason, then, to doubt, that 
to Mark and Luke, considering the circumstances on 
which they stood with the Apostles, the best miracu- 
lous gifts were also communicated. They were not 
Apostles, bat they were prophets who received im- 
mediate revelations from the Spirit. Eph. iii. 5. 

But the conclusive argument as to the inspiration 
and fitness of these two disciples to contribute the books 
they have furnished to the sacred volume, does not rest 
on any supposition, however good the grounds of it 



120 



THE INSPIRATION OF 



may be, but on the fact, that the first churches, under 
the immediate guidance and superintendence of the 
Apostles, received these books on an equal footing 
with the other Scriptures. The nation of Israel was 
appointed by God himself to be the depositaries of 
the Old Testament Scriptures, which are stamped 
with the authority of Jesus Christ. In like manner, 
to that nation which constitutes the kingdom of hea- 
ven, the New Testament Scriptures were committed. 
To it they were addressed and delivered by the Apos- 
tles, whom Christ had commissioned to record his 
words, which these Scriptures contain. The inspira- 
tion, therefore, of this second portion of the Holy 
Scriptures, stands on the same footing with that of the 
first portion, and is equally stamped with his autho- 
rity. We appeal to the canon of the Jews with re- 
spect to the Old Testament, and we have the same 
strong ground of confidence, when we receive from 
the first churches the Scriptures of the New Testa- 
Wtf^* ment. As, therefore, the Gospels of Mark and Luke, 
tcLcOu-out ^y^and the Acts of the Apostles, were received by them 

^ L ^without dispute, were read by t hem in their assem- 

•c^^j-nu^ aj- r j— — — — - — -v - — — t~tt 

■wUoii. i^ft blies ever y Lord s day, and taken for the rule of their 
, ^f' t ^tf>^£ duty, as of equal authority with the other Scriptures, 
f j^^C/ y / which we have already seen by quotations from the 
'k<U ^w^U«arly Christian writers ; so we conclude with cer- 
t^co^f ^ tainty, that these books stand on the same footing 
fTI^ m P°^ nt °^ authority, hi other words, of inspiration 

with all the rest, and form a part of the words of Christ., 
by which we shall be judged at the last day. 

It is often supposed that the historical parts of 
Scripture were written by men acquainted with the 



THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. ]21 



facts that are recorded, under a divine superintend- 
ence, by which they were prevented from falling into 
any error. This opinion is evidently founded on very 
low and erroneous ideas of those portions of the Word 
of God, and of their use. It supposes that these his- 
tories are little more than the narrative of the facts 
they contain, in which we are not greatly concerned. 
But every fact they record is fraught with important 
instruction. This idea was so strongly impressed on 
the Jews, that they maintained that God had more 
care of the letters and syllables of the Law, than of 
the stars in heaven ; and that upon each tittle of it, 
whole mountains of doctrine hung. Hence every in- 
dividual letter of the Law was numbered by them, 
and notice was taken how often it occurred. 

The historical parts of Scripture are both introduc- 
tory to, and illustrative of, the plan of redemption. 
The general importance, in a religious point of view, 
of the great outline of the narrations of the Fall, — of 
the Flood, — of the calling of Abraham, and of the 
election of the people of Israel, — of their deliverance 
from Egypt, and their being put in possession of the 
promised land, must be universally acknowledged. 
But the whole of the minute detail, by which that 
outline is filled up, is likewise in the highest degree 
instructive, and ought to be perused with the most 
devout attention. The Bible history describes, in ac- 
tion and exhibition, the perfections of Jehovah, as 
fully as the proclamation in which he declares him- 
self to be long-suffering, and of great mercy, forgiving 
iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing 
the guilty. It delineates the deceitfulness and des- 



122 



THE INSPIRATION Otf 



perate wickedness of the human heart, as forcibly and 
distinctly as the annunciations of the prophets, when 
they " cry aloud and spare not." In the narratives of 
Scripture, the dependent state, the perverseness, and 
the folly of man, and the secret motives by which he 
is actuated, as well as the power, the wisdom, the 
justice, and the goodness of God in his providential 
government, and above all in redemption, are vividly 
depicted. There is not a battle fought by the Israel- 
ites, nor a change in the administration of their govern- 
ment, the account of which is not designed for our in- 
struction. There is not an incident recorded as taking 
place in a private family, that has not a significant 
meaning. 

In the Scriptures there are many things which, 
considered only in themselves, appear to be of no 
value, or, at least, of very little importance ; but in 
reality the Bible contains nothing superfluous — no- 
thing which does not contribute to its perfection, and 
to the evidence of its divine origin. Besides the 
lists of names in genealogies, we observe many other 
things in the Word of God, the knowledge of which 
seems to be of no use; yet their importance might be 
proved by numerous examples. We find in the Old 
Testament several regulations and narrations, which 
in appearance contribute neither to the strengthening 
of faith, nor to instruction or consolation. In the 
books of Moses, matters of the greatest importance 
are often only touched upon in a few words, while, 
on the contrary, many things that seem inconsider- 
able, are dwelt upon at great length. The redemp- 
tion by the Messiah, which God promised to man 



THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 



immediately after bis fall — the calling of the Gentiles 
predicted to Abraham — the priesthood of Melchise- 
dek, the most illustrious figure of Christ, and many 
other points of important doctrine, are only noted in a 
very summary manner. On the other hand, the na- 
tivity of Ishmael, the marriage of Isa^c, and similar 
histories, are amply detailed, even in the most minute 
particulars, but all of them are full of instruction. 
The single account of Hagar and Ishmael. as inter- \ y & 
preted by the Apostle Paul, even to the most incon- u etc^o. 
siderable circumstance, shows us how we ought to 
judge of other histories of the Old Testament, al- 
though we do not perceive their object.** If Abraham 
had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by 
a free woman, and if the former was cast out of the 
family ; these are the two covenants, the one super- 
seding the other. In that important part of holy 
writ, the eleventh chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, 
the Apostle Paul unfolds " the deep things of God, 
which God had revealed to him by his Spirit." How 
much instruction does he there deduce from the his- 
torical fact that Isaac had two sons, born of the same 
mother, and at the same time, concerning whom it was 
said, <; the elder shall serve the younger which 
contains a practical exhibition of the great and fun- 
damental doctrines of the Prescience, the Provi- 
dence, and the Sovereignty of God, of his Pre- 
destination, Election, and Reprobation. 

Various particulars, apparently of little consequence, 
which the Scriptures relate at great length, prove in 
what way effects the most wonderful have proceeded 
from causes in themselves inconsiderable ; for in- 



124 



THE INSPIRATION OF 



stance, the birthright of Jacob. God is pleased to 
teach great things, by things that are small. The 
prohibitions to take the dam with its young ones in 
the nest, and not to muzzle the ox that treadeth out 
the corn, extend farther than at first appears. The 
act of Jesus Christ in stretching out his hand to touch 
the leper, does not appear of any account, except to 
those who know the law which declares that it oc- 
casioned uncleanness. The same law forbade the 
High Priest, who represented Jesus Christ, to enter 
any house in which there was a dead body. Not- 
withstanding this, the Lord even touched a bier. In 
all these particulars, there is a fulness of important 
doctrine. 

Each passage in Scripture has its particular end in 
view, as the signification of the burning bush, and of 
the animals described in Ezekiel's vision. The Re- 
velation of John does not present Jesus Christ to all 
the churches under the same figure. To one it pre- 
sents the stars and the golden candlesticks. To an- 
other, it exhibits the two-edged sword. To another, 
the eyes like a flame of fire, and feet like fine brass. 
His titles are according to the diversity of the sub- 
jects. Many know, in general, that the ordinances 
of the ceremonial law prefigured Christ, but are igno- 
rant how, and in what character, each of them repre- 
sent him. There are none of them which have not 
an end and particular reason. There are many who, 
not being acquainted with what the Scripture has in 
view, are astonished at the recital of different enor- 
mities which it particularizes so carefully. The in- 
cest of Judah with the wife of his son, (which Moses, 



THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 



125 



as has been observed, had he been simply " superin- 
tended" or " elevated," when he wrote, would never 
have introduced,) might seem as if it should rather 
have been buried with him, than inserted in the Sa- 
cred History, with so many shameful circumstances. 
Yet if the arrogance of the Jews is considered, who 
glory in their extraction, and who even foundtheir elec- 
tion as a nation and covenant upon the virtues of their 
ancestors, we shall see that their errors could not be 
better refuted, nor their pride more effectually hum- 
bled, than by holding up to their view the deeply 
culpable conduct of their progenitor. The sius of 
Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, being recorded, 
was calculated to warn Israel not to seek salvation by 
the works of the law. The omission of the Genealogy 
of Melchisedek, of his birth, and of his death, de- 
noting the eternity of Jesus Christ, proves how much 
even the silence of the Scripture is instinctive. Every 
distinct fact recorded in Scripture history may be tru- 
ly considered an article of faith ; for in the plan of 
Salvation, matters of fact are become doctrines, and 
doctrines are in the nature of matters of fact. That Je- 
sus Christ was bora of a virgin, suffered, and rose again, 
are all at the same time matters of fact and doctrines. 
Every fact points to that great event upon which the 
salvation of man depends — the coming of the Son of 
God in the likeness of sinful flesh, to redeem a pecu- 
liar people to himself — or in some way illustrates 
his salvation. ^ 

In the tenth chapter of the First Epistle to the Co- 
rinthians, this matter, as it respects the histories of 
the Old Testament, is placed beyond all doubt. Af- 



126 



THE INSPIRATION OF 



ter referring to the recorded history of Israel, concern- 
ing their passage through the Red Sea, and the man- 
ner in which they were conducted in the wilderness, 
the Apostle adds, « Now all these things happened to 
them for examples, and they are written for our admo- 
nition, upon whom the ends of the world are come." Here 
the purpose and value of the historical parts of Scrip- 
ture are demonstrated. They are intended for the ad- 
d mon ^ on °f tne P eo pl e °f God. " Whatsoever things 
uXe^i^oU were written aforetime, were written for our learning, 
i^jtut we ^ rou 9^ 1 P a ^ ence and comfort of the Scriptures 
iojCiU il^fi,- might have hope."*Hom. xv. 4. In this passage it is ex- 
Zuc.jUrMA*/ pressly affirmed, that every part of the Old Testa- 
^f*%/ ment Scriptures was written for the use and edifica- 
,^cj^,o^^ s^txon of believers. Where, then, is there a place for the 
^ e*vtAj*> impious sentiment which some have ventured to pro- 
j x ^ 0< mulgate — so derogatory to every idea that we ought 

to entertain of the oracles of God — so diametrically 
opposed to all they inculcate respecting their own 
divine origin and inspiration — that they contain cer- 
tain things that are " not of a religious nature," and 
that " no inspiration was necessary concerning them?" 
In opposition to such daring and profane theories, Paul, 
the commissioned and accredited ambassador of Jesus 
Christ, affirms that " ALL Scripture is given hy inspi- 
ration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for re- 
proof for correction, for instruction in righteousness y 
that the man of God may he perfect, thoroughly fur- 
nished unto all good works" The above compre- 
hensive declarations include the historical as well as 
the prophetical and doctrinal parts of the Sacred Ora- 
cles, in short, the whole of them. The object, there- 



THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 



127 



fore, of the historical records in the Scriptures, is 
essentially different from that of all other histories. 
They are not given to preserve the memory of certain 
occurrences, in order to promote the knowledge of 
what may be useful in regard to the affairs of this 
world, and to extend the sphere of human intelligence 
and experience ; but exclusively to teach the know- 
ledge of God and salvation. Scripture history is con- 
ducted in such a manner, that, like the doctrinal parts 
of the Bible, it is foolishness to the men of the world. 
It not only disappoints them in the nature of the facts 
which it relates, but also in the manner in which they 
are exhibited. Owing to the truth and impartiality 
of its narrations, the character of the people of Israel 
appears to them greatly worse than that of the gross- 
est idolaters, and the accounts given in Scripture of 
men whose conduct on the whole stands approved by 
God, seems to them to sink below that standard of moral 
rectitude, to which they imagine that they themselves, 
and many of those who make no pretensions to reli- 
gion, have attained* It not only records truth, with- 
out the smallest mixture of error, but also invariaoly 
keeps in view the agency of God in every occurrence, 
— in events the most minute, as well as the most con- 
siderable ; and thus it furnishes a perpetual comment 
on the sublime description of the Apostle, when, pe- 
netrated with admiration of the riches, both of the 
wisdom and knowledge of God, he exclaims, " Of 
Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things ; 
to whom be glory for ever. Amen." 

When the typical import of so many of the sacred 
narrations, concerning persons, places, institutions, and 



128 THE INSPIRATION OF 

events, with their necessary bearings, in subserviency 
to the ushering in of the Messiah, are duly attended to, 
all may be convinced, that for selecting and relating 
these histories, in which nothing was to be deficient, 
and nothing redundant, and for placing before us these 
mystic pictures for our instruction, the most plenary in- 
spiration, the most accurate divine dictation, was in- 
dispensable. The prophets, and even the angels, had 
but a partial understanding of the things that were 
afterwards to take place. Moses, it is evident, was 
not aware, that, as being a type of Christy it was ne- 
cessary that his death should intervene, before the 
people of Israel should be led into the promised land. 
Jtgtcptutf. ( We have no reason to believe that he understood the 
qLf. £ import of all he wrote ; — for instance, that when he 

recorded the history of Sarah and Hagar, he knew 
the design for which it was recorded, and the rise that 
was afterwards to be made of it. We cannot doubt 
that the prayer of David, " Open thou mine eyes^ that 
I may see wondrous things out of thy law" was equal- 
ly suitable for Moses, who wrote that law. It was 
the Lord who made the statutes, and judgments, and 
laws, between him and the children of Israel, by the 
hand of 'Moses. — Lev. xxvi. 46. 

Had the wisest and best informed of the Scripture 
historians not been inspired of God, but simply su- 
perintended, so as to prevent them from falling into 
error, the histories recorded by them would have been 
very unlike those which they have actually transmit- 
ted. Many of their narrations that exist would ne- 
ver have appeared, and others of them would have 
been very differently modified. We might have dis- 



THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 



129 



covered in them the self-approving wisdom of man, ^£^^2. 
but not the seeming " foolishness of God." Would ^ 
the united sagacity of all the wise men in the world 
have led them to relate the history of the creation of 
the universe in one chapter of a book, as Moses has 
done, and of the erection of the tabernacle in thir- 
teen ?* Would the fond prejudices of the Jewish na- 
tion, or the general desire fostered by so many of the 
learned, to support what is called the dignity of hu- 
man nature, in both which Moses no doubt partici- 
pated, have permitted him to record so base an ac- 
tion as the selling of their brother Joseph as a slave 
by the Jewish patriarchs, — the incest of Judah, whose 
tribe was to be always pre-eminent, — and the treach- 



* If we compare the first chapter of Genesis with the 
last sixteen of Exodus, excepting the 3"2d and the two fol- 
lowing, we shall find a great difference between Moses' de- 
scribing the construction of the universe and that of the ta- 
bernacle. In the one, he is very general and succinct ; in 
the other, he is very copious, and marks the smallest pecu- 
liarities. The description of the great edifice of the world 
seemed truly to require more words than that of a small tent. 
But, on the contrary, the Spirit of God having presented a 
short representation of the whole mass of the world, details 
at great length the structure of the tabernacle. The world 
was solely constructed for the Church, in order that in it God 
should be served, and by it his glory manifested; Eph. iii. 
10. The tabernacle was, in one view, a figure of the Church. 
God, thus purposing to show that his church, in which he 
was to be served, was more precious to him and more im- 
portant than all the rest of the wwld, has spoken of the ta- 
bernacle more amply and more particularly, than of all the 
elements and all the universe together. 

1 



130 



THE INSPIRATION OF 



ery and revenge of Levi, from whom was to descend 
the whole priesthood of Israel ? 

That there was a higher hand which directed the 
pens of Moses, and of the other writers of sacred 
history, may be sufficiently manifest to all who have 
seen in what that history has issued. There is, be- 
sides, a combination and a harmony in the historical 
parts, both of the Old and New Testaments, which 
we have sufficient ground to believe in a great mea- 
sure escaped the notice of the writers, as has also 
been the case with thousands of those who have read 
them — a variety and a unity which irresistibly prove 
that One only — He who knows the end from the be- 
ginning — is the author of the whole who employed 
various individuals to produce a uniform work, of 
which none of them either comprehended all that he 
contributed to it, or knew for what reason he was di- 
rected to record one thing,* and to omit another. 

Considering the purpose which the historical parts 
of the Scriptures were intended to serve, in exhibit- 
ing the character and power of God, and his un- 
interrupted agency in the government of the world, 
and in pointing to Him who is the end of the law, 



* A remarkable instance of this occurs in the repetition of 
the tenth commandment in the book of Deuteronomy. The 
Romanists are in the habit of striking out the second com- 
mandment, which condemns their idolatry, and to preserve 
the appearance of integrity for the decalogue, they divide the 
tenth commandment into two. The transposition of this 
commandment in the book of Deuteronomy, for which at 
first sight no reason can be assigned, completely stultifies and 
exposes their artifice. 



THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 131 

we have sufficient reason to be convinced, that nei- 
ther Moses, nor the other sacred historians, nor all 
the angels in heaven, though acquainted with all the 
facts, and under the direction, and with the aid, both 
of superintendence and elevation, were competent to 
write the historical parts of the Word of God. They 
neither possessed foresight nor wisdom sufficient for 
the work. In both respects, every creature is limited. 
Into these things, the angels, so far from being quali- 
fied to select and endite them, 66 desire to look," and, 
from the contemplation of them, derive more know- 
ledge of God than they before possessed, and have 
their joy even in heaven increased. In those histo- 
ries, the thoughts and secret motives of men are often 
unfolded and referred to. Was any one but the 
Searcher of Hearts competent to this ? Could angels 
have revealed them, unless distinctly made known to 
them ? If it be replied, that in such places the sa- 
cred writers enjoyed the inspiration of suggestion, 
that is, of verbal dictation, we ask, where is the dis- 
tinction to be found ? It is a distinction unknown to 
the Scriptures. And so far from a plenary inspira- 
tion not being necessary in its historical parts, there 
is not any portion of the sacred volume in which it 
is more indispensable. But even admitting that 
verbal inspiration was not in our view essential in 
those parts of the book of God, is this a reason why 
we should not receive the testimony of the sacred 
writers, who nowhere give the most distant hint 
that they are written under a different kind or degree 
of inspiration from the rest of it ; but who, in the 



132 THE INSPIRATION OF 

most unqualified manner, assert that full inspiration 
belongs to the whole of the Scriptures ? 

The very words that are used in the prophetical 
parts of Scripture, must necessarily have been com- 
municated to the prophets. They did not always 
fzc /H^rCcs \ comprehend the meaning of their own predictions, 
pcofo ju I - nt0 wn j cn tne y « searched diligently." And in this 
case, it was impossible that, unless the words had 
k^cc been dictated to them, they could have written in- 
^tsMt^A jvct^A - telligibly. Although they had written the Scriptures, 
( V(X ^7 f ^m^LcC'^ was necessar y to show them " that which is noted 
ml to t<nc4tcLoi\'i-m the Scripture of truth," Dan. x. 21. The writings 
l^i'l^dVi '<h^ tettLqfc the prophets constitute a great portion of the Old 
il.^]!l^^li^ estameilt Scriptures, an( * ^od c l aims it as his sole 
weU'l Jji ( m^HP rer0 ^ ative ' t0 kn0W . the thin ^ S tbat are t0 COme ' 
u^dJL Uvflivu^ We are therefore certain that they enjoyed verbal in- 
3 totw(vftM/JU inspiration; and, as we have not any where a hint of 
am. t^Oll ^c/i^Wlifferent kinds of inspiration by which the Scriptures 
x U wis} M-y 'il are written, does it not discover the mos t presumptu - 
u /iiiccu^ J A J- tv< ous aiTO gance to assert that there are different kinds ? ^ 

I* YdU\u*lUy The nature of the mission of the prophets required 
u^^y^i^^Q f u n inspiration which they affirm that they pos- 
~-^p^ . . sessed. God never intrusted such a work as they had 
■ to perform to any man, nor any part of such a work. 

, j^j^tt ^It was God himself, " who, at sundry times, and in di- 
MU u 4m £^W. verse maimers > spake in time past unto the fathers, by 
ufctw \vujJ r *M i^the prophets." That work, through which was to be 
vJWcit ^/ iw^ade known 66 to principalities and powers in hea- 
tViyenly places, the manifold wisdom of God, according 
u^cl uvlc^t- l^to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ 
whi^ a* ^ tfW " Jesus," was not a work to be intrusted to any crea- 
^ jtvtrw U ^o^ture. The prophet Micah, iii, 8, says, « 2?wf / 

(A^lL u jvh^J lAy^^jcl^c^ui Ouvuy^bCUcJL /MWi^ /lvQ.t^^J^^^VUjL ll\J^/)rfMb 



THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 



133 



am full of poicer by the Spirit of the Lord, and of 
judgment, and of might, to declare unto Jacob his 
transgression, and to Israel his sin" It was not the 
prophets then who spoke, but the Spirit of God who 
spoke by them. 

Of the complete direction necessary for such a ser- 
vice as was committed to him, both of lawgiver and 
prophet, Moses was aware, when the Lord commanded 
him to go to Pharaoh, and to lead forth the children 
of Israel from Egypt. In that work he intreated that 
he might not be employed. This proved the proper 
sense he entertained of his own unfitness for it. But 
it was highly sinful, and evinced great weakness of 
faith, thus to hesitate, after the Lord had informed 
him that he would be " with him." Moses was ac- 
cordingly reproved for this, but the ground of his plea 
was admitted ; and full inspiration, not only as to the 
subject of his mission, but as to the very words he 
was to employ, was promised. In answer to his ob- 
jection, the Lord said unto him, Exod. iv. 11, 12, 
" Who hath made man's mouth ? or who maketh the 
dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind ? have not 
I the Lord ? Now therefore go, and / will be with 
thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt say* 1 Mo- 
ses still urged his objection, and the same reply was 
in substance repeated, both in regard to himself and 
to Aaron. The full inspiration, then, which was at 
first promised to Moses in general terms, was, for his 
encouragement, made known in this particular man- 
ner, and the promise was distinctly fulfilled. Accord- 
ingly, when, as the lawgiver of Israel, he afterwards ad- 
dressed the people, he was warranted to preface what 



134 



THE INSPIRATION OF 



he enjoined upon them with, " Thus saith the Lord" 
or, " These are the words which the Lord hath com- 
manded^ that ye should do them" In observing all 
the commandments that Moses commanded them, and 
in remembering the way by which the Lord had led 
them, Israel was to learn, that " man doth not live 
by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth 
out of the mouth of the Lord." Signs were shown to 
Moses, and God came unto him in a thick cloud, in 
order, as he said, " that the people may hear thee 
when I speak with thee, and believe thee for ever" 
Exod. xix. 9. 

If the words of Moses had not been the words of 
God, — had he not been conscious of the full verbal 
inspiration by which he wrote, would the following 
language have been suitable to him, or would he have 
ventured to use it ? Deuteronomy, iv. 2 : " Ye shall 
not add unto the word which I command you, neither 
shall ye diminish aught from it, that ye may keep 
these commandments of the Lord your God which I 
command you" Deut. vi. 6 : " And these words, 
which I command thee this day, shall be in thine 
heart ; and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy 
children," &c. Deut. xi. 18 : " Therefore shall ye lay 
up these my tvords in your heart and in your soul, 
and bind them for a sign upon your head, that they 
may be as frontlets between your eyes. And ye shall 
teach them to your children, speaking of them ivhen 
thou sittest in thine house, and when thou tvalkest by 
the way, when thou liest down, and when thou risest 
up. And thou shalt write them upon the door-posts 
of thine house, and upon thy gates" From these 



THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 



135 



passages, we learn that Moses was conscious that all 
the words which he spoke to the people were the 
words of God. He knew that it was with him as 
with Balaam, to whom the Lord said, Numbers, xxii. 
35, 38, " Only the word that I shall speak unto thee> 
that thou shalt speak and in the language of Ba- 
laam, Moses could answer, " The word that God put- 
teth in my mouth, that shall I speak'* 

As " the word of the Lord" was communicated to 
Moses, so it also came to Gad, to Nathan, and to the 
other prophets, who were men of God, and in whose 
mouths was the word of God. " Now by this I 
know that thou art a man of God, and that the word 
of the Lord in thy mouth is truth" 1 Kings, xvii. 24. 
The manner in which the prophets delivered their 
messages, proves that they considered the words 
which they wrote, not as their own words, but dic- 
tated to them by God himself. Elija said to Ahab, 
" Behold I will bring evil upon thee, and will take 
away thy posterity '." On this, Mr Scott, in his Com- 
mentary, observes, " Elija was the voice, the Lord 
was the speaker, whose words these were." This is 
a just account of all the messages of the prophets. 
They introduce them with, " Thus saith the Lord " 
and declare them to be " the word of the Lord ;" and 
is it possible that the prophets could have more ex- 
plicitly affirmed, that the words which they uttered 
were communicated to them, and that they were 
only the instruments of this communication to those 
whom they addressed? In the place where we read, 
" Now these be the last words of David, the sweet 
psalmist of Israel," David says, " The Spirit of the 



136 



THE INSPIRATION OF 



Lord spake by me, and his word was in my tongue" 
2 Samuel, xxiii. 2. In like manner it is said, " And 
he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord 
his God, and humbled not himself before Jeremiah 
the prophet speaking from the mouth of the Lord,* 
2 Chron. xxxvi. 1,2. " Yet many years didst thou 
forbear them, and testifiedst against them by thy Spi- 
rit in the prophets" Nehemiah, ix. 30. Isaiah com- 
mences his prophecies by summoning the heavens and 
the earth to hear, « for the Lord hath spoken" Isa. 
i. 2. In the same manner, Jeremiah writes, " The 
words of Jeremiah, to whom the word of the Lord 
earned " Then the Lord put forth his hand and 
touched my mouth ; and the Lord said unto me, Be- 
hold, I have put my words in thy mouth" " J will 
make my words in thy mouth fire" Jeremiah, i. 1, 2 ; 9 ; 
v. 14. " Thus speaketh the Lord GodofLsrael, say- 
ing, Write thee all the words that I have spoken unto 
thee in a book," Jeremiah, xxx. 2. Again, in the pro- 
phecies of Ezekiel, " Son of man, go, get thee unto 
the house of Israel, and speak my words unto them," 
u Moreover he said unto me, Son of man, all my 
words that I shall speak unto thee, receive in thine 
heart, and hear with thine ears, and go get thee to 
them of the captivity, unto the children of thy people, 
and speak unto them and tell them, Thus saith the 
Lord God." Ezekiel, iii. 4, 10. Hosea says, " The 
word of the Lord that came unto Hosea ;" " The be- 
ginning of the word of the Lord by Hosea" i. 1 , 2. 
It is in similar language that the other prophets ge- 
nerally introduce their predictions, which are every- 
where interspersed with, " thus saith the Lord" 



THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 137 



All, then, that was spoken by the prophets in these 
several recorded passages, was spoken in the name of 
the Lord ; and " no prophecy of the Scripture is of 
any private interpretation." When false prophets ap- 
peared, it was necessary for them to profess to speak 
in the name of the Lord, and to steal his words from 
their neighbour. " I have heard what the prophets say, 
that prophesy lies in my name, saying, I have dream- 
ed, I have dreamed. The prophet that hath a dream, 
let him tell a dream ; and he that hath my word, let 
him speak my word faithfully. What is the chaff to 
the wheat ? saith the Lord. Ls not my word like as a 
fire ? saith the Lord ; and like a hammer that break- 
eth the rock in pieces ? Therefore, behold, L am against 
the prophets, saith the Lord, that steal my words every 
one from his neighbour. Behold, L am against the 
prophets, saith the Lord, that use their tongues, and 
say, He saith.' 1 Jeremiah, xxiii. 25-31. They were 
the words of God, therefore, which the false prophets 
stole from the true prophets of Jehovah. 

The uniform language of Jesus Christ, and his 
Apostles, respecting the whole of the Old Testament 
Scriptures, proves that, without exception, they are 
" the Word of God.' 1 On what principle but that 
of the verbal inspiration of Scripture, can we explain 
our Lord's words, John, x. 35, " The Scripture cannot 
be broken ?" Here the argument is founded on one 
word, " gods," which without verbal inspiration might 
not have been used; and if used improperly, might 
have led to idolatry. In proof of the folly of their 
charge of blasphemy, he refers the Jews to where it 
is written in their law, " I said ye are Gods." The 



138 



THE INSPIRATION OF 



reply to this argument was obvious : — The Psalmist, 
they might answer, uses the word in a sense that is 
not proper. But Jesus precluded this observation, 
by affirming, that " the Scripture cannot be broken," 
that is, not a word of it can be altered, because it is 
the Word of Him with whom there is no variableness. 
Could this be said if the choice of words had been 
left to men ? Here, then, we find our Lord laying 
down a principle, which for ever sets the question at 
rest. The Apostles, in like manner, reason from the 
use of a particular word. Of this we have an exam- 
ple, Hebrews, ii. 8, where the interpretation of the 
passage referred to depends on the word " all." Again, 
Galatians, iii. 16, a most important conclusion is drawn 
from the use of the word " seed" in the singular, and 
not in the plural number. A similar instance occurs, 
Hebrews, xii. 27, in the expression " once more," 
quoted from the prophet Haggai. 

When the Pharisees came to Jesus, and desired an 
answer respecting divorce, he replied, " Have ye not 
read, that he which made them at the beginning, made 
them a male and female ? and said, for this cause," 
&c. Thus, what is said in the history, either by Adam 
or Moses, at the formation of Eve, is appealed to as 
having the authority of a law. Adam was not a le- 
gislator, and nothing that Moses could say, unless dic- 
tated by God, could have the force of a law, to be 
quoted by our Lord. But what was then uttered by 
man, was the word of God himself. 

The Lord Jesus Christ constantly refers to the whole 
of the Old Testament, as being, in the most minute 
particulars, of infallible authority. He speaks of the 



THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 139 , . n 

necessity of every word of the Law and the Pro- ^/t^o^UU 
phets being fulfilled. " Till heaven and earth pass, A**-©** £0*3 
orae jot or o^e shall in no wise pass from the Law, K ^^fo^Z. w 
till all be fulfilled." — " It is easier for heaven and earth L c^h A 
to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail." — " The Scrip- ^ 4 fix- 
tures" he says, « must be fulfilled." In numerous pas- ^f^;^> 
sages the Lord reiers to what is " written in the Scrip- ^ qZ^m 
tures, as of equal authority with his own declarations ; ^ 
and, therefore, the words which they contain must ^^^v^^ 
be the words of God. U^c^cCT^h 
. The Apostles use similar language in their many re- U<fh ^ lv* 
ferences to the Old Testament Scriptures, which they 
quote as of decisive authority, and speak of them in : | Kvvvk ^ 
the same way as they do of their own writings. " That 
ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken ^'*^^7x.Xb. 
before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment 
of us the Apostles of the Lord and Saviour" 2 Pe- 
ter, iii. 2. Paul says to Timothy, " From a child thou 
hast known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to 
make thee wise unto salvation, through faith, which is 
in Christ Jesus," 2 Tim, iii. 15. In this way he 
proves the importance of the old Testament Scrip- 
tures, and the connexion between the Mosaic and 
Christian dispensations. The Apostles call the Scrip- 
tures " the oracles of God," Rom. iii. 2. What God 
says is ascribed by them to the Scriptures : " The 
Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same 
purpose have I raised thee up, that 1 might show my 
power in thee" — " For what saith the Scripture? — 
Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him 
for righteousness" — " What saith the Scriptures ? 
cast out the bond-woman, and her son" So much is 



140 THE INSPIRATION OF 

the Word of God identified with himself, that the 
Scripture is represented as possessing and exercising 
the peculiar prerogatives of God : " The Scripture, 
foreseeing that God tuould justify the Heathen ;" — 
" The Scripture hath concluded all under sin' 9 

From the following passages, among others that 
might be adduced, we learn the true nature of that 
inspiration which is ascribed to the Old Testament 
by the writers of the New : Matth. i. 22, " Now all 
this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was 
spoken of the Lord by the Prophet." Matth. ii. 15, 
" And was there until the death of Herod : that it 
might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by 
the Prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my 
son." Matth. xxii. 43, " He saith unto them, How 
then doth David, in spirit, call him Lord ?" Mark 
xii. 36, " For David himself said by the Holy Ghost." 
Luke, i. 70, " As he spake by the mouth of his Holy 
Prophets, which have been since the world began." 
Acts, i. 16, " Which the Holy Ghost spoke by the 
mouth of David." Acts, xiii. 35. " He (God) saith 
also in another Psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thine 
Holy One to see corruption." These words are here 
quoted as the words of God, although addressed to 
himself. In the parallel passage, Acts, ii. 31, the 
same words are ascribed to David, by whose " mouth" 
therefore God spoke. Acts, xxviii. 25, " And when 
they agreed not among themselves they departed, af- 
ter that Paul had spoken one word : Well spake the 
Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet, unto our fathers." 
Roma. 2, " Which i/e-had promised afore by his pro- 
phets in the Holy Scriptures." Rom. ix. 25, " As 



THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 141 

He saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, 
which were not my people ; and her Beloved, which 
was not beloved." 1 Cor. vi. 16, 17, " What ! know 
ye not, that he which is joined to an harlot is one 
body ? for two, saith He, shall be one flesh." Here 
the words of Adam or of Moses are referred to by 
the Apostle, as they had been by Jesus Christ him- 
self, as the words of God. Eph. iv. 8, " Wherefore 
He saith, when he ascended up on high." Heb. i. 7, 
8, " And of the angels He saith;' — " But unto the 
Son He saith. 1 ' In these passages what was said by 
the psalmist, is quoted as said by God. Heb. iii. 7, 
" Wherefore, as the Holy Ghost saith, To-day if ye 
will hear his voice." Heb. x. 15, " Whereof the 
Holy Ghost also is a ivitness to us, for after that He 
had said." 1 Peter, i. 11, " Searching what, or what 
manner of time, the Spirit of Christ which was in them 
did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings 
of Christ, and the glory that should follow." 2 Peter, 
i. 20, " Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the 
Scripture is of any private interpretation, for the pro- 
phecy came not in old time (at any time) by the will of 
man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved 
by the Holy Ghost." And how was it possible that 
they could find language in which to express the mys- 
teries of God which they so imperfectly comprehended, 
unless the Spirit of Christ, which was in them, had dic- 
tated every word they uttered, Acts, iv. 25, " Who 
by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why 
did the Heathen rage ?" Heb. i. 1, " God, who at 
sundry times, and in diverse manners, spake in time 
past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last 



142 



THE INSPIRATION OF 



days spoken unto us by bis Son." The words, tben, 
spoken by the Prophets, were as much the words of 
God, as the words which were spoken by the Lord 
Jesus Christ himself. And on various occasions Jesus 
declares, that the words which he spoke were the 
words of him that sent him. John, viii. 26, 28, " I speak 
to the world those things which I have heard of him " 
— " As my Father hath taught me, I speak these 
things." John, xii. 49, 50, " I have not spoken of my- 
self, but the Father which sent me, he gave me a com- 
mandment what I should say, and what I should speak ;" 
— " Whatsoever I speak, therefore, even as the Father 
said unto me, so I speak." John, xiv. 10, " The words 
that I speak unto you, I speak not of myself." a John, 
xvii. 8, " I have given unto them the words which 
thou gavest me." John, xvii. 14, " I have given them 
thy word." And this was in strict conformity with 
what God had declared by Moses, concerning the di- 
vine mission of his Son. Deut. xviii. 18, " I will raise 
them up a Prophet from among their brethren like unto 
thee, and will put my words in his mouth ; and he 
shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. 
And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not 
hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my 
name, I will require it of him." — " He hath made my 
mouth" saith the Redeemer, " like a sharp sword," 
Isaiah, xlix. 2. " And out of his mouth went a sharp 
two-edged sword," Rev. i. 16. And again, God saith 
to the Messiah, " I have put my words in thy mouth," 
Isaiah, li. 16. " And my words, which I have put in 
thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth," Isaiah, 
lix. 21. The words, then, of which the whole of the 



THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 



143 



Scriptures are composed, are the words dictated by- 
God, and written by men. Sometimes they are quoted 
as the words of God, and sometimes as the words of 
the writers, which proves that in fact they are both. 
Those who deny that, in any case, the words used by 
the penmen of Scripture are the words of God, ex- 
pressly contradict the assertion of the Apostle, that 
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and also 
disregard the direct testimony of all those passages 
which have been quoted above, as well as of a mul- 
titude of others to the same effect, that are contained 
in the Scriptures. 

The perfect inspiration which belongs to the Apos- 
tles may be learned from the nature of that Service 
to which they were appointed, from the Promises 
which were given to them for the discharge of it, and 
also from their own Declarations, the truth of 
which is attested, not only by the nature of their 
doctrine, but by the miracles that they wrought. 

The commission of the Lord to his Apostles, when 
he sent them forth in the Service to which he ap- 
pointed them, was given in these words : Matt, 
xxviii. 19, 20, " Go ye, therefore, and teach all na- 
tions, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and 
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them 
to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded 
you ; and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the 
end of the world. Amen" Here we see, that the 
commission of the Apostles included the promulga- 
tion of the whole doctrine, and of every regulation 
of the kingdom of God ; that it extended to all the 
world ; and that a promise was annexed to it, that 



144 



THE INSPIRATION OF 



the Lord himself would be present with them to the 
end of time, maintaining and giving efficacy to their 
testimony, which is recorded in the Scriptures. 

This commission is exactly conformable to all that 
Jesus Christ had at different times said to the Apos- 
tles. To Peter, at one time, he declared, Matt. xvi. 19, 
" And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom 
of heaven ; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth 
shall be bound in heaven ; and whatsoever thou shalt 
loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Afterwards, 
he repeated this to all the Apostles, Matt, xviii. 18, 
" Verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on 
earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall 
loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." To the same 
purpose, when he had breathed on them and said, 
" Receive ye the Holy Ghost," John, xx. 22, he added, 
'* Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted un- 
to them ; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are 
retained." In these respects, the Apostles were con- 
stituted the authoritative ambassadors of the Lord, 
and were appointed to an office in which they can 
have no successors. The laws which, under that 
authority, they were to establish, and the doctrine 
they were to promulgate, by which eternal life is 
conveyed to men, and which is therefore characterised 
as the keys of the kingdom of heaven, were to be of 
perpetual and universal obligation. John, xii. 48, 
" He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words," 
says Jesus, " hath one that judgeth him. The word 
that I have spoken," (which he had spoken, or was 
to speak by his Apostles,) " the same shall judge him 
in the last day." In another place, to the same pur- 
2 



THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 



145 



pose, when speaking of the Apostles having followed 
him, he says to them, Matt. xix. 28, " In the regene- 
ration, when the Son of Man shall sit in the throne 
of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, 
judging the twelve tribes of Israel." 

The word that the Apostles were to declare, was 
to open and to shut, and to bind and to loose, in 
heaven and in earth. It was his own word, the 
word of God, to be uttered by them, by which he 
would at last judge the world. " For," says he, " he 
that receiveth you, receiveth me ; and he that recei- 
veth me, receiveth him that sent me," Matt. x. 40 ; 
which is to the same effect as when he says to the 
seventy disciples whom he sent out, " He that 
heareth you, heareth me ; and he that despiseth you, 
despiseth me ; and he that despiseth me, despiseth 
him that sent me," Luke, x. 16. From the awful 
importance, then, of the service committed to the 
Apostles, we may judge what kind of inspiration 
was necessary for those whose words were to be 
the words of the judge of all. " We are unto God," 
say they, " a sweet savour of Christ, in them that 
are saved and in them that perish. To the one we 
are the savour of death unto death ; and to the other 
the savour of life unto life : and who is sufficient for 
these things?" 2 Cor. ii. 15. The commission of 
the Apostles embraces every circumstance by which 
the divine glory is manifested to every order of in- 
telligent beings — the whole of that revelation of 
mercy by which the manifold wisdom of God is to 
be made known to principalities and powers in hea- 
venly places, as well as a complete system of the 

K 



146 



THE INSPIRATION OF 



will of God to mankind. Can it be supposed, then, 
that the heralds of this salvation did not receive a 
plenary inspiration to qualify them for such a service ? 
That a prophet should be left to the choice of his 
own words, and be a prophet from God, or that an 
Apostle should be commissioned to promulgate the 
laws of the kingdom of Christ, which are everlast- 
ingly to bind in heaven and in earth, and yet be per- 
mitted to choose for himself the words and language 
in which these laws should be delivered, is altogether 
incredible and absurd. If the words or language are 
of man's choosing, the Bible becomes partly the book 
of man and partly the book of God. 

The nature of this inspiration, we are also taught 
by the Promises that were given to the Apostles 
respecting it. When Jesus Christ first sent out his 
Apostles to proclaim to the house of Israel that his 
kingdom was at hand, he warned them of the recep- 
tion they were to meet with, and that they should be 
brought before governors and kings for his sake. 
At the same time they were forbid to use the means 
which would have been necessary, if in any measure 
they had been left to their own judgment. He com- 
manded them to rely entirely upon him, and pro- 
mised them that inspiration which, in such situations, 
would be necessary for them : Matt. x. 19, " But 
when they deliver you up, take no thought how or 
what ye shall speak ; for it shall be given you in that 
same hour what ye shall speak: For it is not ye that 
speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh 
in your Mark, xiii. 11, " But when they shall lead 
you and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand 



THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 147 

what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate, but 
whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that 
speak ye ; for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy 
Ghost" In the parallel passage, Luke, xii. 12, " For 
the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour 
what ye ought to say." And again, Luke, xxi. 15, 
" I will give you a mouth, and wisdom which all 
your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor re- 
sist." Language cannot more plainly declare, that 
the words they were to utter, were to be given by 
inspiration to the Apostles. It was the Holy Spirit 
who was to speak by them, just as " God hath 
spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the 
world began," Acts, iii. 21 ; Luke, i. 70. 

If this inspiration was necessary for the Apostles 
in particular passing circumstances, when they were 
brought before judges and magistrates ; and if, in such 
occasional situations, as on the day of Pentecost, they 
actually possessed it, how much more necessary must 
it have been when they were employed in recording 
the permanent laws of the kingdom of Christ ! It 
must therefore be included in the declarations made 
by our Lord, in what he says in his last discourse,, 
respecting the Comforter whom he was to send. And 
that these declarations did refer to the same inspira- 
tion, we are not left to conjecture; for we hear the 
Apostle Paul, when afterwards he addresses a Chris- 
tian church, asserting that Christ spake in him, 2 Cor. 
xiii. 3. When about to leave his disciples, Jesus 
says to them, John, xiv. 26, " But the Comforter, 
which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send 
in my name, he shall teach you cdl things, and bring 



148 



THE INSPIRATION OF 



all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have 
said unto you." The Apostles were not to trust to 
their memories, to repeat what Jesus had said to 
them ; but all that he had said was to be dictated to 
them by the Holy Ghost. And again, John, xiv. 13, 
" When he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide 
you into all truth ; for he shall not speak of himself, 
but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak, and 
he will show you things to come" After his resur- 
rection, Jesus Christ said to them, John, xx. 21, 
" Peace be unto you ; as my Father has sent me, 
even so send I you" His last words to them on earth 
were these, Acts, i. 8 : " But ye shall receive power 
after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you, and ye 
shall be witnesses unto me, both in Jerusalem and in 
all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost 
parts of the earth" Such were the Promises given 
to the Apostles of what they were to receive, to fit 
them for that great work in which they were going 
to engage. We shall now hear their Declara- 
tions in respect to the fulfilment of them. 

On the day of Pentecost, Acts, ii. 4, " They were 
all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak 
with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance, " 
On that occasion, when speaking in unknown tongues, 
as was the case with others of the brethren in the 
Churches, 1 Cor. xiv. 13, 28, they must have been 
inspired with every word they spoke, as is asserted 
in the declaration, that " the Spirit gave them utter- 
ance." When, afterwards, having been brought be- 
fore the Jewish rulers, they had returned to their 
own company and prayed, Acts, iv. 31, " The place 



THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 



149 



was shaken where they were assembled together, and 
they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they 
spake the word of God with boldness." Paul begins 
his Epistles by designating himself an Apostle of 
Jesus Christ. Thus he declares his Apostolic cha- 
racter and commission from the Lord, by whom he 
was qualified for his work. We see with what au- 
thority he afterwards expresses himself : " Now 
unto him that is of power to stablish you according to 
my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, accord- 
ing to the revelation of the mystery which was kept 
secret since the world began ; but now is made mani- 
fest, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, accord- 
ing to the commandment of the everlasting God, 
made known to all nations for the obedience of faith." 
— " Though we," says the same Apostle, Galatians, 
i. 8, " or an angel from heaven, preach any other 
gospel unto you than that which we have preached 
unto you, let him be accursed." — " As we said be- 
fore, so say I now again, If any man preach any 
other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let 
him be accursed." — " But I certify you, brethren, 
that the gospel which was preached of me is not after 
man. For I neither received it of man, neither was 
I taught it but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." 
1 Cor. ii. 9, 10, " But as it is written, eye hath not 
seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the 
heart of man, the things which God hath prepared 
for them that love him. But God bath revealed 
them unto us by his Spirit." — " Which things also 
we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teach - 
ethj but which the Holy Ghost teacheth" 1 Cor. ii. 



150 



THE INSPIRATION OF 



13. Here, in making a general declaration of what 
he taught, both the matter and the words are de- 
clared to be from God.* Again he says, 1 Cor. ii. 



* On this verse Macknight has the following note : — 
" Words taught by the Holy Spirit — From this we learn that 
as often as the Apostles declared the doctrines of the gospel, 
the Spirit presented these doctrines to their minds clothed in 
their own language ; which, indeed, is the only way in which 
the doctrines of the gospel could be presented to their minds. 
For men are so accustomed to connect ideas with words, 
that they always think in words. Wherefore, though the 
language in which the Apostles delivered the doctrines of the 
gospel, were really suggested to them by the Spirit, it was 
properly their own style of language. This language in 
which the doctrines of the gospel was revealed to the Apostles, 
and in which they delivered these doctrines to the world, is 
what St Paul calls the form of sound words, which Timothy 
had heard from him, and was to hold fast, 2 Tim. i. 13. 
Every one, therefore, ought to beware of altering or wrest- 
ing the inspired language of Scripture, in their expositions of 
the articles of the Christian faith. Taylor, in the sixth chap- 
ter of his key, at the end, explains the verse under consider- 
ation thus : — Which things we speak, not in philosophical terms 
of human invention, but which the Spirit teacheth in the wri- 
tings of the Old Testament : and contends, that the Apostle's 
meaning is, that he expressed the Christian privileges in the 
very same words and phrases, by which the Spirit expressed 
the privileges of the Jewish church in the writings of the 
Old Testament. But if the Spirit suggested these words 
and phrases to the Jewish prophets, why might he not sug- 
gest to the Apostles the words and phrases in which they 
communicated the gospel revelation to the world ? Especially 
as there are many discoveries in the gospel which could not 
be expressed clearly, if at all, in the words by which the pro- 
phets expressed the privilege of the Jewish church. Besides, 



THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 



151 



15, " For who hath known the mind of the Lord, 
that he may instruct him ? but we have the mind 
of Christ." 1 Cor. ii. 7, " We speak the wisdom 
of God." Eph. iii. 4, " Whereby, when ye read, 
ye may understand my knowledge in the mys- 
tery of Christ, which in other ages was not made 
known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed 
unto his holy Apostles and Prophets by the Spirit." 
2 Cor. ii, 10, " To whom ye forgive any thing, I for- 
give also ; for if I forgave any thing, to whom I for- 
gave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of 
Christ." 2 Cor. xiii. 2, 3, " If I come again I will 
not spare, since you seek a proof of Christ speak- 
ing in me." In 1 Cor. vii. 17, where some have 
rashly and ignorantly asserted, that the Apostle con- 
cludes with expressing a doubt whether he was in- 
spired or not, he says, " so ordain I in all churches." 
Such language, which is precisely similar to that of 
Moses, Deut. vi. 6, would have been most presump- 
tuous, unless he could have added, as he does a little 
afterwards, 1 Cor. xiv. 36, " What I came the word of 
God out from you ? or came it unto you only ? If any 
man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let 
him acknowledge that the things that I write unto 
you are the commandments of the Lord." At the 
opening of the same epistle Paul had said, " My 
speech and my preaching was not with enticing words 



it is evident, that when the Apostles introduce into their 
writings the words and phrases of the Jewish prophets, they 
explain them in other words and phrases, which, no doubt, 
were suggested to them by the Spirit." 



152 



THE INSPIRATION OF 



of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit 
and of power," — " We speak the wisdom of God." 
Could any man have used such language unless he 
had been conscious that he was speaking the words 
of God ? 1 Thess. ii. 13, " For this cause also thank 
we God, without ceasing, because, when ye received 
the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received 
it not as the word of men, but (as it is in truth) the 
ivord of God" 1 Thess. iv. 8, " He, therefore, that 
despiseth, despiseth not man but God, who hath also 
given unto us his Holy Spirit." 1 Pet. L 12, " Unto 
whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but 
unto us they did minister the things, which are now 
reported unto you by them that have preached the 
gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down 
from heaven ; which things the angels desire to look 
into." 1 Pet. i. 23, " Being born again, not of cor- 
ruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of 
God, which liveth and abideth for ever." 1 Pet. i. 
25, " The word of the Lord endureth for ever. And 
this is the word which by the Gospel is preached unto 
you." In referring to the instruction which they gave 
to the churches, the Apostles characterise it as their 
ee commandment," and refer to it as equivalent to the 
authority of the Holy Ghost, as in fact it was the same. 
Acts, xv. 24, 28, " It seemed good to the Holy 
Ghost, and to us." Such is the inspiration by which 
all the penmen of the Scriptures wrote, and God has 
annexed the most solemn prohibitions against any at- 
tempt to add to, or to take from, or to corrupt, his 
Word. These warnings are interspersed through every 



THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 



153 



part of the sacred volume ; and each one of them is 
equally applicable to the whole of it. 

In this manner, that portion of the Scriptures 
called the Law is guarded : — (: Ye shall not add 
unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye 
diminish aught from it" Deut. iv. 2; xii. 32. 

In the next division, sometimes called the Hagio- 
grapha, it is written, " Every word of God is pure : 
He is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. 
Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and 
thou be found a liar" Prov. xxx. 16. The last part 
of this threatening is infinitely more terrible than the 
first ; for transgressors may be reproved, and yet find 
mercy, but " all liars shall have their part in the lake 
which burnetii with fire and brimstone, which is the 
second death," Rev. xxi. 8. 

In the prophetical writings, a similar warning is 
again repeated. They are closed with an intimation, 
that no more prophets were to be sent, till the fore- 
runner of Jehovah, who was to come suddenly to his 
temple, should appear. Israel is then commanded 
to regard that revelation which had been made to 
Moses, concerning Jesus, which the prophets had 
been commissioned to illustrate, but not to alter ; 
u Remember ye the law of Moses, my servant, which 
I commanded unto him in Horeb,for all Israel, with 
the statutes and judgments,'' Mai. iv. 4. 

As, at the conclusion of the Old Testament, where 
the attention of the people of Israel is called to the 
first appearance of the Son of God, the Saviour, they 
are instructed that the prophetic testimony to him 19 
finished ; so, at the conclusion of the New Testament, 



154 



THE INSPIRATION OF 



where the attention of all men is directed to his second 
coming, as the final Judge, the canon of Scripture is 
closed, and a solemn and most awful warning is given, 
neither to add to it, nor to take from it : " I testify 
unto every man that heareth the words of the prophe- 
cy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, 
God shall add unto him the plagues that are written 
in this book ; and if any man shall take away from 
the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take 
away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the 
Holy City, and from the things which are written in 
this book," Rev. xxii. 18, 19. This passage, so simi- 
lar to the others above cited, is, for the same reasons 
for which it is applicable to the book of Revelation, 
applicable to the whole inspired volume. 

In the references that have been made above to 
many passages of Scripture, to which more of a simi- 
lar import might have been added, the complete ver- 
bal inspiration by which both Prophets and Apostles 
spoke and wrote, has, by their own declarations, 
been unanswerably established. Whatever they re- 
corded, they recorded by the Spirit of God. Whe- 
ther they spoke in their own tongue, or in tongues 
which they had not learned ; or whether they uttered 
prophecies which they understood, or concerning 
which they acknowledged, " I heard, but I under- 
stood not still they spoke or wrote as they were 
moved by the Holy Ghost. And if we have seen 
that even the Divine Redeemer himself, who is over 
all, God blessed for ever, when acting as the Father's 
servant in his mediatorial character, spoke, as he de- 
clares, not of himself, but the words of Him that sent 



THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 155 



him ; and that God the Holy Ghost, in his office of 
Comforter, was not to speak of himself, but to speak 
whatsoever he should hear ; is it to be presumed that 
Prophets and Apostles should ever have been left to < * rr 
choose the ivords which they have recorded in the , **>f 
Scriptures?* W 

The words, then, which the Prophets and Apostles a^efi£&£>^ 
recorded, were the words of God, — Christ spake in - - 
them, — they were the words which the Holy Ghost < Lee-tUj./2Jo 
taught. The word of God is the sword of the Spirit, 
Eph. vi. 17. " It is quick, and powerful, and sharper 
than any two-edged sword," Heb. iv. 12. This word 
was put into the mouths of the Prophets and Apostles; 
and therefore their words and commandments have 
all the authority of the words and commandments of 
God. " i" stir up your pure minds by way of re- 
membrance, that ye may be mindful of the words 
which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of 
the commandment of us, the Apostles of the Lord and 
Saviour," 2 Pet. iii. 1, 2. The term inspiration loses 
its meaning when an attempt is made to divide it be- 
tween God and man. In what an endless perplexity 
would any man be involved, who was called upon to 
give to each degree of inspiration, under which it has 
been supposed the Bible is written, that portion which 
belongs to it ! Let any one undertake the task, and 
he will soon find that he is building upon the sand. 
Yet such an attempt should have been made by those 
daring innovators, be they ancient or modern, who 
have represented the sacred volume as a motley per- 
formance, — part of it written under an inspiration of 
suggestion or revelation, — part of it under an 



156 



THE INSPIRATION OF 



inspiration of direction, — part of it under an in- 
spiration of elevation, — part of it under an inspi- 
ration of superintendence, — and part of it under 
no inspiration at all ! 

But why have such distinctions been introduced ? 
Do they diminish the difficulty of our conceiving 
how the inspiration of the Holy Ghost is communi- 
cated to those who are the subjects of it ? Is it easier 
to conceive that a meaning without words should be 
imparted to the mind of man, than that it should be 
conveyed to him in words ? Instead of being dimi- 
nished, the difficulty is increased tenfold. But, in 
either case, we have nothing to do with difficulties ; 
it is a subject which we cannot comprehend ; and in 
whatever way the effect is produced, it is our duty 
to believe what the Holy Scriptures assert, and not 
to resort to those vain speculations on the subject, 
by which men darken council by words without know- 
ledge. Every Christian should remember, that the 
view which he takes of the inspiration of the Scrip- 
tures, is to him of the greatest practical importance. 
With what a different feeling must that man read the 
Bible, who believes that it is a book which partly 
treats of u common and civil affairs,'* and partly of 
" things religious," which is partly the production of 
men, who were sometimes directed in one way, 
sometimes in another, and who sometimes were 
not directed at all, and partly the production of 
God, and that it contains certain things unworthy 
of being considered as a part of divine revelation, 
— from the feeling of the Christian, who reads that 
sacred book under the solemn conviction, that its 



THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 



157 



contents are wholly religious, and that every word 
of it is dictated by God ! In reading these words, 
Proverbs, iii. 2, " My so?i, despise not the chastening 
of the Lord, neither be weary of his correction" — 
how differently must he be affected, who reads 
them as addressed to him merely by Solomon — from 
the man who views them as addressed to him by 
his heavenly Father, according to Hebrews, xii. 5 ! 
Paul, in that Epistle, in making various quotations from 
the Old Testament, refers to them expressly as the 
words of the Holy Ghost. As far as distinctions in 
inspiration are admitted, their tendency is to diminish 
our reverence for the Bible, and to exclude as much 
as possible the operation of the Spirit of God in its 
composition. In the same way men eagerly oppose 
the doctrine of a particular Providence, as one on 
which it is not "prudent" to insist, as not " neces- 
sary" and as " attended with difficulties" while they 
labour to exclude the agency of God from the go- 
vernment of the world, and from the direction of the 
course of events, by ascribing the whole to the ope- 
ration of what are called " the laws of nature." 

Dr Doddridge, in his Essay on Inspiration, p. 58, 
after desiring the reader to observe, that in very few 
instances he has allowed an error in our present co- 
pies (of the Scriptures), and that, in these few in- 
stances, he has imputed it to translators — adds, "be- 
cause, as Mr Seed very properly expresses it in his 
excellent sermon on this subject, (which, since I 
wrote the former part of this dissertation, fell into 
my hands,) a partial inspiration is, to all intents and 
purposes, no inspiration at all : For, as he justly 



158 



THE INSPIRATION OF 



argues against the supposition of any mixture of er- 
ror in these sacred writings, mankind wouldbe as 
much embarrassed to know what was inspired, and 
what was not, as they could be to collect a religion 
for themselves ; the consequence of which would be, 
that we are left just where we were, and that GOD 
put himself to a great expense of miracles to effect 
nothing at all ; a consequence highly derogatory 
and injurious to his honour." It is not a little re- 
markable, that sucb sentiments should thus be ap- 
proved of by one who, in the same work, has ascribed 
various degrees of inspiration to different parts of the 
Scriptures. Let this glaring inconsistency be con- 
sidered by those who have followed Dr Doddridge 
in his unscriptural views on this subject. 

It is allowed by Dr Doddridge, that under what 
is called the inspiration of suggestion, " the use of 
our faculties is superseded, and God does as it were 
speak directly to the mind; making such discove- 
ries to it, as it could not otherwise have obtained, 
and dictating the very words in which these disco- 
veries are to be communicated to others : so that a 
person, in what he writes from hence, is no other 
than first the Auditor, and then (if I may be allow- 
ed the expression) the Secretary, of GOD ; as John 
was of our Lord Jesus Christ, when he wrote 
from his sacred lips the seven Epistles to the Asia- 
tic Churches. And it is no doubt to an inspira- 
tion of this kind that the Book of the Revelation 
owes its original." (Doddridge on Inspiration, page 
41.) Why, then, has Dr Doddridge supposed that 
any other part of the Bible was written under an 



THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 159 



inspiration of a different kind ? Where did he learn 
this ? Was it less necessary that the Epistles which 
were written to the other churches, as " the com- 
mandments of the Lord," 1 Cor. xiv. 37, should be 
fully inspired, than for those addressed to the se- 
ven churches of Asia ? or was it requisite that, to the 
Book of Revelation, a higher degree of inspiration 
should belong, than to the other books of the Holy 
Scriptures? And where, we are entitled to ask, do 
the Scriptures sanction such distinctions ? But if 
they in no part give the smallest countenance to 
them, or to any thing similar, what right has any man 
to introduce them, and to teach what the Scriptures 
have not only not taught, but the contrary of which 
they have most explicitly taught ? To invent distinc- 
tions that consider some parts of the Scriptures as half 
inspired, and others as not inspired at all, and relating 
to things merely civil, is most dishonourable and de- 
grading to the Book of God, and deprives Christians 
of all that edification which such passages are calcu- 
lated to afford. Such distinctions, let them be made 
by whom they may, are the offspring of presumption 
and folly. 

On the whole, we see the nature of that inspiration 
by which the prophets and apostles wrote. The man- 
ner of communicating the revelations might differ, 
Numbers, xii. 6, 7, 8. They might be imparted in a 
vision, or in a dream, or by speaking mouth to mouth ; 
but the result, as well as their certainty and authority, 
were the same. For the prophecy came not in old 
time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake 
as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Neither 



160 



THE INSPIRATION OF 



was it the Apostles who spoke, but the Spirit of their 
Father who spoke in them, or by them. Let no man, 
then, venture to introduce distinctions in that inspira- 
tion by which the word of God is written, unheard of 
in that word, and therefore totally unwarranted and 
unauthorized. It is not for men to say, " How can 
these things be ?" No man comprehends himself either 
in soul or in body, nor can we tell how the one acts 
upon the other : And shall vain man, who " would be 
wise, though man be born like the wild ass's colt," 
stumble at, and reject, the declarations of God con- 
cerning that inspiration which belongs to his word, 
and by which he makes known his pleasure ? " The 
wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest 
the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it 
cometh, and whither it goeth." The Lord is able to 
communicate his will in whatever way he pleases, 
although we cannot trace the manner of his opera- 
tion. In the words spoken by the ass of Balaam, we 
have an example of this communication, through an 
unconscious and involuntary instrument.* In Ba- 
laam himself we have an example through one who 
was conscious, but involuntary, in the declaration he 
made respecting Israel. In Caiaphas, through one 
who was voluntary in what he said, but unconscious 
of its import. And in the writers of the Scriptures, 



* Under which of the kinds of inspiration that have been 
so ingeniously forged, did the Ass of Balaam speak ? Was it 
under that of Elevation? Or shall the truth of the fact be 
rejected altogether, because it is " attended with difficul- 
ties ! !" 



THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 



161 



we have an example of agents botb voluntary and 
conscious, but equally actuated by the Spirit of God. 

The dictating of that Law which is perfect, every 
jot and tittle of which was to be fulfilled, — of those 
histories which were written for the " admonition" 
of all future generations, — of the institutions of that 
kingdom which is to endure for ever, — and of that 
word by which all shall be judged, was, and neces- 
sarily must have been, the work of perfect, that is, the 
work of infinite wisdom ; Psalm xix. 7, " The law of 
tJie Lord is perfect." — But if certain parts of it are the 
words of men, who wrote merely under a superin- 
tendence which preserved them from recording what 
is false, or erroneous, these parts must, like their au- 
thors, be imperfect. The same would hold true re- 
specting all that is supposed to be written under an 
inspiration of elevation, which, whatever it may mean, 
could not be carried beyond that enlargement of 
which the mind of man is capable. The Bible can 
only be perfect, if it be the word of God himself from 
one end to the other. But, if the words of the wri- 
ters of it be solely their own words, or be they the 
words of Angels, Principalities, or Powers, they are 
imperfect, — and the Bible is an imperfect book. 

The perfection of the Scriptures is necessary, for 
the purpose they were intended to serve. " The 
heavens declare the glory of God ; and the firmament 
showeth his handy work," Psalm xix. 1. " By the 
things that are made" God's eternal power and God- 
head are clearly seen, so as to render men " without 
excuse," Rom. i. 20 ; and there they leave him under 
condemnation. But " The Law of the Lord is pcr- 

L 



162 



THE INSPIRATION OF 



feet, converting the soul : the testimony of the Lord 
is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the 
Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the command- 
ment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes," It 
is not, then, by the works of creation, — it is not by 
his dealings towards either holy or fallen Angels, 
that the glory of God is fully displayed. This ho- 
nour is reserved for the history of the incarnation of 
his Son. It is here, and here only, that mercy and 
truth meet together, that righteousness and peace em- 
brace each other ; — truth has sprung out of the earth, 
and righteousness has looked down from heaven. 
Here justice and judgment are seen to be the habi- 
tation of Jehovah's throne, — and mercy and truth to 
go before his face. 

" Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the 
skies pour down righteousness ; let the earth open, 
and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteous- 
ness spring up together ; I the Lord have created it," 
Isaiah, xlv. 8. Here is something far more glorious 
than all that ever was seen before in the universe of 
God ! It is a righteousness exalted to absolute per- 
fection, and rendered infinitely glorious by the union 
of the divine with the human nature. God charged 
his Angels with folly, and the heavens are not clean 
in his sight, but with him who wrought this right- 
eousness, he is " well pleased." 

The righteousness of Adam in innocence, or the 
righteousness of angels in glory, was the righteous- 
ness of creatures, and therefore a limited righteous- 
ness. It consisted in the love and service of God, 
which they rendered with all their heart and strength ; 



THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 



163 



but farther it could not go. Their righteousness was 
available in the time only while it continued to be per- 
formed, and it might cease and be lost. But that 
righteousness which the skies have poured down, is 
a righteousness that is infinite, and that shall never be 
abolished, Isaiah, li. 6, 8. It is a righteousness that 
was performed in a limited period of time, by Him 

who is " CALLED JEHOVAH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS ;" 

but the glory of it was contemplated from eternity, 
while its efficacy extends back to the fall of man, and 
forward through all the ages of eternity. It is the 
"everlasting righteousness" which the prophet Daniel 
predicted was to be brought in by the Messiah. It 
is " the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus 
Christ," 2 Peter, i. 1, the ministration of which was 
committed to the Apostles, 2 Cor. iii. 9. Through 
eternity it shall be the delight of the Father, the ad- 
miration of angels, and the song of the redeemed. 

It is in the Bible that this righteousness is made 
known. In the Bible the Gospel is recorded, which 
is the power of God unto salvation, because therein 
is the righteousness revealed, Rom. i. 17. The Bible 
contains the record of the eternal purpose of God, 
which he purposed in Christ Jesus, — of the unsearch- 
able riches of Christ, — of the eternal election of Him 
to be the Mediator between God and man, and of the 
eternal election of his people in Him, — of his incar- 
nation, humiliation, and exaltation to glory. And 
" in as much as he who hath builded the house hath 
more honour than the house," insomuch is there a 
higher display of the glory of God, in the history con- 
tained in the Bible, of Him who was " God manifest 



164 



THE INSPIRATION OF 



in the flesh/' than is afforded in the creation, and the 
discovery of all the other works of God in the uni- 
verse, animate and inanimate, of which Jesus Christ 
is the Creator and the Head. Hence is that prefer- 
ence justified which is given to the Bible above them 
all, " Thou hast magnified thy word above all thy 
name" The earth and the heavens shall perish, — 
66 Ass, vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall 
be changed, — But the Word of the Lord endureth for 
ever. And this is the Word which by the Gospel is 
preached unto you." 

Such, then, is the perfection of the Bible, for the 
writing of which, the most complete inspiration was 
absolutely indispensable, in order that it should be en- 
tirely the word and the work of God,— in thought, — 
in meaning, — in style, — in expression, — in every part, 
and in the strictest sense, the word or voice of God 
to man. Each part is necessary in its place to com- 
plete the whole, — and if any one part were wanting, 
however inconsiderable it may appear, that absolute 
perfection, that complete adaptation to the end pro- 
posed, which belong to the Book of God, would be 
destroyed. 

Christians ought to beware of giving up in the 
smallest degree the inspiration of the Bible. That 
precious deposit is now delivered to their keeping, as 
the first portion of it was committed to the Jews. 
The Jews were constituted the " witnesses" of Jeho- 
vah, Isaiah, xliii. 10, 12 ; until the time arrived, when, 
in his sovereign pleasure, he appointed other " wit- 
nesses," Acts, i. 8, The nation of Israel was his pe- 
culiar treasure, — an holy nation, Exodus, xix. 5, 6 ; 



THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 165 



till, by their final rejection of his Son, they forfeited 
that title, and he gave his vineyard to other husband- 
men, Mattb. xxi. 41. They possessed the peculiar 
name which he had conferred on them, till the prophecy 
concerning it was fulfilled, when it was left " for a 
curse," Isaiah, lxv. 15 ; and when a new name was 
bestowed on those who were henceforward to be ac- 
knowledged as the people of God, Acts, xi. 26 ; 1 
Peter, iv. 16. Having become the depositaries'of the 
whole volume of inspiration, let Christians regard it 
with the same unshaken fidelity, w r ith which, before 
being completed, " the words which the Lord of Hosts 
hath sent in his Spirit by the former prophets" Zecha- 
riah, vii. 7, 12, were preserved by the Jews. Let them 
not weaken by vain reasonings, the impression pro- 
duced upon their minds by the testimony of the Bi- 
ble itself, concerning its full inspiration in every part, 
nor substitute for it, a book which, in their imagina- 
tion, is only partially inspired, — which contains some- 
times the words of God, and sometimes the words of 
men, who spake not as they were moved by the Holy 
Ghost, but who were only preserved from error, or 
who wrote " as any other plain and faithful men 
might doT By such sentiments, the offspring of phi- 
losophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, 
after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ, 
has the Bible been degraded, and its high title to the 
designation of " the oracles of God" made void. In 
opposition to these heretical opinions, be they ancient 
or modern, let every disciple of Him whose com- 
mand it is to " search the Scriptures," regard it as a 
faithful saying, and not liable to doubtful interpreta- 



166 THE INSPIRATION, &C. 

tions, that " All Scripture is given by inspiration 
of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof 
for correction, for instruction in righteousness ; that 
the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished 
unto all good works T 



L 167 ] 



APPENDIX. 



The following are Extracts on the Verbal Inspira- 
tion of the Scriptures, from the Works of Emi- 
nent Christian Writers. 

Irex,eus, who conversed with Polycarp, the disci- 
ple of John, and who himself lived hut a few years af- 
ter that Apostle, says, " Well knowing that the Scrip- 
tures are perfect, as dictated (or spoken) hy the word 
of God, and his Spirit, — a heavy punishment awaits 
those who add to, or take from, the Scriptures. But 
we follow the one and only true God, as our teacher ; 
and having his words as a rule of truth, do always 
speak the same things concerning the same tilings!." 

To the same purpose, Origen, horn in the second 
century, speaks of it as a common opinion, " That the 
sacred books are not writings of men, hut have been 
written and delivered to us from the inspiration of the* 
Holy Spirit, by the will of the Father of all things, 
through Jesus Christ." And again, " The sacred Scrip- 
tures come from the fulness of the Spirit; so that 
there is nothing in the Prophets, or the Law, or the 
Gospel, and the Epistles, which descends not from the 
Divine Majesty," — one and the same Spirit proceed- 
ing from the one God, teacheth the like things in the 
Scriptures written before the coming of Christ, and 
in the Gospels and Apostles." " For my part, I believe 
that not one jot or tittle of the divine instructions is 
in vain." " Let us come daily to the wells of the 
Scriptures, the waters of the Holy Spirit, and there 
draw and carry home a full vessel."— Lardner, vol. II. 
172, 488, 495. 



168 



EXTRACTS FROM 



" It is asked — If in writing, they (the sacred writers) 
were so acted upon and inspired by the Holy Spirit, 
both as to the things themselves, and as to the words, 
that they were free from all error, and that their wri- 
tings are truly authentic and divine ? The adversaries 
deny this. We affirm it." 

" Scripture proves itself divine from its style ; Di- 
vine Majesty shining not less from the simplicity than 
the gravity of its diction." 

" Nor can it easily be believed that God, who has 
dictated and inspired all and the very words, to men 
divinely inspired, has not taken care also about the 
preservation of them all."* 

" But God has instituted the Scripture, partly by 
revelation, which has been accomplished, 1. By wri- 
ting, as was shown in the giving of the Law. 2. By 
commanding, that it might be written, Deut. xxxi. 19. 
Rev. i. 1 9, 3. By inspiring, 2 Tim. iii. 1 6, that is, by sug- 
gesting the things that were to be written, and infallibly 
directing the writing; so fully, that in all things, whe- 
ther relating to matters of doctrine or of fact, he not 
only inspired the things themselves, but has even dic- 
tated the very words "f 



* Institutio Theologian Francisco Turretino, Vol. 1. p. 70. 
— " Quseritur — An in scribendo ita acti et inspirati fue- 
rint a Spiritu Sancto, (scriptores sacri,) et quoad res ipsas, et 
quoad verba, ut ab omni error e immunes fuerint, et scripta 
ipsorum vere sint authentica et divina ? Adversarii negant ; 
nos affirmamus." 

" Scriptura seipsam divinam probat — ex parte styli ; Divi- 
na Majestas, non minus ex simplicitate quam gravitate dic- 
tionis elucens." Page 71. 

<£ Nec facile credi potest, Deum, qui omnia et singula ver- 
ba viris Szotfvzvtrois dictavit et inspiravit, de omnibus etiam 
oonservandis non curasse." Page 80. 

f Theologia, &c. Petro Van Mastricht, Vol. I. p. 21. sect. 



EMINENT CHRISTIAN WRITERS. 169 



" The Scripture is principally called the Word of 
God, on account of the infallible inspiration which 
belongs to it — to the words equally as to the things, in 
which, therefore, nothing irrelevant occurs, although 
God has wisely accommodated himself to the style of 
each of the amanuenses in writing, as to the sound of 
the voice in speaking."* 

" The Holy Spirit made use of the pens of the Evan- 
gelists, and of the Apostles, for the writings of the 
New Testament, as he had formerly made use of those 
of Moses and the Prophets for the Old. He furnished 
them with the occasions for writing. He gave them 
the desire, the power to do it. The matter, the form, 
the order, the economy, the expressions, are of his im- 
mediate inspiration, and of his direction."f 



19 " Condidit autem Deus scripturam : partim revelatione, 

quae peracta est, 1. Scribendo, ut in decalogo conspicuum. 

2. Mandando, ut scriberetur, Deut. xxxi. 19. Apoc. i. 19. 

3. Inspirando, 2 Tim. iii. 16. h. e. suggerendo scribenda, et 
infallihiliter dirigendo scriptionem. Usque adeo, ut in omni- 
bus, sive injure versentur, sire in facto ; non solum res ip- 
sas inspiraverit, sed etiam singula verba dictarit : partim ca- 
nonizatione" &c. 

* Joharmis Marckii Theologise Medulla, Sec. — " Scriptura 
verbum Dei praecipue dicitur ob inspirationem infallibilem, 2 
Tim. iii. 16. 2 Pet. i. 20, 21, quae pertinet — ad verba 
denique aeque quam ad res, in quibus proinde nihil inepti 
occurrit ; etiamsi singulorum x\manuensium stylo prudenter 
Deus se accommodaverit in scribendo, aeque quam vocis sono 
in loquendo." Page 12 and 13, sect. 5. 

f Claude Posthumous Works, Vol. IV. p. 228.—" Le 

Saint Esprit s'est servi de la plume des Evangelistes et des 
Apotres pour les ecritures du NouVeau Testament, comme il 
fe'eteit autre fois servi de celles de Moyse et des Prophetes pour 
1' Ancien. II leur a fourni les occasions d'ecrire, il leur en a 



170 



EXTRACTS FROM 



Hooker, in his first sermon on Jude, says, " God, 
which lightened thus the eyes of their understanding, 
giving them knowledge by unusual and extraordina- 
ry means, did also miraculously himself frame and 
fashion tjieir words and writings, insomuch that a 
greater difference there seemeth not to be between 
the manner of their knowledge, than there is between 

the manner of their speech and ours But God 

haih made my mouth like a sword, saith Isay. And we 
have received, saith the Apostle, not the Spirit of the 
world, but the Spirit which is of God, that we might 
know the things lohich are given to us of God, which 
things also we speak, not in words, which man's wisdom 
teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost doth teach. This 
is that which the Prophets mean by those books writ- 
ten full, within and without; which books were so 
often delivered them to eat, not because God fed them 
with ink and paper, but to teach us, that so oft as he 
employed them in this heavenly work, they neither 
spake nor wrote any word of their own, but uttered 
syllable by syllable as the Spirit put it into their 
mouths, no otherwise than the harp or the lute doth 
give a sound according to the discretion of his hands 
that holdeth and striketh it with skill. The difference 
is only this : An instrument, whether it be a pipe or harp, 
maketh a distinction in the times and sounds, which 
distinction is well perceived of the hearer, the instru- 
ment itself undertanding not what is piped or harped. 
The Prophets and holy men of God not so. * / opened 
my mouth? saith Ezechiel, c and God reached me a 
scroul, saying, Son of man, cause thy belly to eat, and 



donne le desir et les forces. La matiere, la forme, la ordre, 
l'oeconomie, les expressions sont de son inspiration immediate 
et de sa direction," 



EMINENT CHRISTIAN WRITERS. 



m 



fill thy bowels with this I give thee. I eat, and it was 
sweet in my mouth as honey J saith the Prophet. Yea 
sweeter, I am persuaded, than either honey or the 
honey comb. For herein they were not like harps or 
lutes, but they felt, they felt the power and strength 
of their own words. When they spake of our peace, 
every corner of their hearts was filled with joy. When 
they prophesied of mournings, lamentations, and woes 
to fall upon us, they wept in the bitterness and indig- 
nation of spirit, the arm of the Lord being mighty and 
strong upon them." 

In the dedication of Hooker's Sermon of Mr Henry 
Jackson to Mr George Summaster, Principal of Broad- 
Gates Hall, in Oxford, the former says, " Sir — Your 
kind acceptance of a former testification of that re- 
spect I owe you, hath made me venture to show the 
world these Godly Sermons under your name. In 
which, as every point is worth observation, so some 
especially are to be noted. The first, that, as the spi- 
rit of Prophecy is from God himself, who doth in- 
wardly heat and enlighten the hearts and minds of his 
holy penmen, (which if some would diligently con- 
sider, they would not puzzle themselves with the con- 
tentions of Scott, and Thomas, whether God only, or 
his ministering spirits, do infuse into men 's minds pro- 
phetical revelations, per species intelligibiles,) so God 
framed their words also. Whence the holy father St 
Augustine religiously observeth, That all those that 
understand the sacred writers, will also perceive, that 
they ought not to use other words than they did, in 
expressing those heavenly mysteries which their hearts 
conceived, as the Blessed Virgin did our Saviour, by 
the Holy Ghost: 1 — Hooker's Works, 1662, pp. 283, 4. 

Boyle, in his " Considerations touching the Style of 
the Holy Scriptures," everywhere asserts that God is 
the author of the Scriptures, and the writers no more 
than his secretaries, as page 17. He calls the Holy Ghost 



172 



EXTRACTS FROM 



" the writer of the Scriptures, and the method of the 
Scriptures the Holy Ghost's way of writing," p. 56. 
" The inspired writers had their pens guided by an 
omniscient hand, and were but the several secretaries 
of the same enditer," p. 76. " We are not to believe 
that so divine an enditer, by secretaries," &c. p. 79. 
" The prophetic spirit that endited them," (the Scrip- 
tures,) p. 81. Boyle calls God the author of the Scrip- 
tures, p. 122; and next page he calls the Bible " a 
book published by an omniscient enditer." The Scrip- 
tures are " God's dictates," p. 125. " Amongst the 
thirteen articles of the Jewish creed, one acknowledges 
the very expressions of the Law, (or Pentateuch,) to 
have been inspired by God," pp. 128, 129. " He vouch- 
safes to speak to us in almost as glorious a manner as 
he did to Moses" p. 133. And speaking against pro- 
faneness, as it relates to the Scriptures, he says, " and 
perhaps passing to the impudence of perverting in- 
spired expressions," p. 178. 

Dr Owen, in his Exposition of the Epistle to the 
Hebrews, Exercitation 1, expresses himself as follows. 
" And thus, not this or that part, but 2 Timothy, iii. 16, 
all Scripture was given by inspiration. And herein 
all the parts or books of it are absolutely equal. And 
in the going out of the whole, 2 Pet. i. 21, holy men of 
God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 
So that whatever different means God at any time 
might make use of, in the communication of his mind 
and will unto any of the prophets or penmen of the 
Scripture, it was this divine inspiration, and being 
acted by the Holy Ghost both as to things and words, 
that rendered them infallible revealers of him unto 
the church. And thus the foundation of the canon- 
ical authority of the books of the Scripture, is abso- 
lutely the same in and unto them all, without the least 
variety either from any difference in kind or degree." 

Dr Owen says, in his book " Of the Divine Origi- 



EMINENT CHRISTIAN WRITERS. 



173' 



nail, with the authority, self-evidencing power, and light 
of the Holy Scriptures" p. o, 10, " The various ways 
of special Revelation, by Dreams, Visions, Audible 
Voices,, Inspirations, with that peculiar one of the 
Law-giver, under the Old Testament, called face to 

face, Exod. xxxiii. 11, Deut. xxxiv. 10, and Numbers, 
xi. S, with that which is compared with it, and exalted 
above it, (Heb. i. 1, '2, 3,) in the Xew, by the Son, 

from the bosom of the Father, John, i. 17, 18, are not 
of my present consideration, all of them belonging to 
the manner of the thing inquired after, not the thing 
itself. 

" By the assertion then laid down of God speaking 
in the prophets of old, from the beginning to the end 
of that long tract of time, consisting of 1000 years, 
wherein he gave out the writings of the Old Testa- 
ment ; two things are ascertained unto us, which are 
the foundation of our present discourse. 

" 1. That the Laws they made known, the Doctrines 
they delivered, the Instructions they gave, the Stories 
they recorded, the Promises of Christ, the Prophecies 
of Gospel times they gave out, and revealed, were not 
their own, not conceived in their Jlinds, not formed 
by their Reasonings, not retained in their Memories 
from what they had heard, not by any means before- 
hand comprehended by them, (1 Pet. i. 10, 11,) but 
were all of them immediately from God; there being 
only a passive concurrence of their rational faculties 
in their reception, without any such active obedience, 
as by any Law they might be obliged unto/ Hence, 
-dly, God was so with them, and by the Holy Ghost 
so spake in them, as to their receiving of the word from 
him, and their delivering of it unto others by speaking 
or writing, as that they were not themselves enabled 
by any habitual light, knowledge or conviction of 
Truth, to declare his Mind and Will, but only acted 
as they were immediately moved by him. Their 



174 



EXTRACTS FROM 



Tongue in what they said, or their hand in what they 
wrote, was no more at their own disposal, than the 
Pen is, in the hand of an expert Writer, 

" Hence, as far as their own Personal concernments, 
as Saints and Believers, did lie in them, they are said 
to make a diligent inquiry into and investigation of the 
things, which the Spirit of Christ that spake in them- 
selves did signify, 1 Pet. i. 10, 11. Without this, though 
their Visions were express, so that in them their eyes 
were said to be open, Numb. xxiv. 3, 4 ; yet they un- 
derstood them not. Therefore also, they studied the 
Writings and Prophecies of one another, Dan. ix. 2. 
Thus they attained a saving useful habitual know- 
ledge of the Truths delivered by themselves and others, 
by the Illumination of the Holy Ghost, through the 
Study of the Word, even as we, Psalm cxix. 104. But 
as to the receiving of the Word from God, as God 
spake in them, they obtained nothing by Study or Me- 
ditation by inquiry or reading, Amos, vii. 1 5. Whe- 
ther we consider the matter or manner of what they 
received and delivered, or their receiving and deli- 
vering of it, they were but as an instrument of Music, 
giving a sound according to the hand, intention, and 
skill of him that strikes it. 

" This is variously expressed. Generally it is said, 
the word was to this, or that prophet, which we have 
rendered, the word came unto them. Ezek. i. 3. It 
came expressly. It had a subsistence given unto it, or 
an effectual in-being, by the Spirit's entering into him, 
verse 14. Now this coming of the word unto them, 
had oftentimes such a greatness, and expression of the 
majesty of God upon it, as it filled them with dread 
and reverence of him, Hob. iii. 16, and also greatly 
affected even their outward man, Ban. viii. 27. But 
this dread and terror (which Satan strove to imitate, 
in his filthy Tripodes,) was peculiar to the Old Testa- 
ment, and belonged to the pcedagogie thereof; Heb. xii. 



EMINENT CHRISTIAN WRITERS. 



18, 19, 20, 21. The Spirit in the declaration of the 
New Testament, gave out his mind and will in a way 
of more liberty and glory. 2 Cor. 3. The expressness 
and immediacy of revelation was the same; but the 
manner of it related more to that glorious liberty in 
fellowship and communion with the Father, where- 
unto believers had then an access provided them by 
Jesus Christ. Heb. ix. 8. ch. x. 19, 20. ch. xii. 23, 
24. So our Saviour tells his Apostles, Matt, x, 20, 
You are not the speakers of what you deliver, as other 
men are, the figment and imagination of whose hearts 
are the fountain of all that they speak ; and he adds 
this reason, The Spirit of the Father (is) he that 
speaketh in you. Thus the word that came unto them, 
was a book which they took in, and gave out without 
any alteration of one tittle or syllable. Ezek. ii. 8, 9, 
10, 11. ch. iii. 3. Revel, x. 9, 10, 11. 

" Moreover, when the icord was thus come to the 
prophets, and God had spoken in them, it was not in 
their power to conceal it, the hand of the Lord being 
strong upon them. They were not now only on a 
general account to utter the truth they were made 
acquainted withall, and to speak the things they had 
heard and seen, which was their common preaching 
work according to the analogie of what they had re- 
ceived; Acts, iv. 20 ; but also the very individual words 
that they had received were to be declared. When 
the word w&scometo them, it was as a fire within them, 
that must be delivered, or it would consume them, 
Fsal. xxxix. 3; Jer. xx. 9; Amos, iii. 8. chap. vii. 15, 
16. So Jonah found his attempt to hide the word 
that he had received, to be altogether vain." 

Estius, in his commentary on the words, " All 
Scripture is given by inspiration of God" says, " It 
is rightly and most truly concluded from this place, 
that all the sacred and canonical Scripture is written 
by the dictate of the Holy Spirit, in such a manner 



176 EXTRACTS FROM CHRISTIAN WRITERS. 

certainly, that not only the sentiments, but also the 
particular words, and the order of the words, (verba 
singula et verborum ordo,) and all the arrangement, is 
from God speaking as by himself — for this is the 
meaning of the expression — that Scripture is divinely 
inspired." The theologians in the University of 
Douay, in which Estius taught theology, had made a 
decree of the above tenor, directly condemning Si- 
mon's opinion on the subject, and the Father Jesuits 
of Louvain. Here, then, is the decree of a whole 
University in support of the verbal inspiration of the 
Scriptures. These Douay Divines declared that they 
had examined the propositions of the Jesuits of Lou- 
vain, by order of the Archbishop of Cambray and of 
Malines, and of the Bishop of Gand. 



The above extracts are not given in the way of au- 
thority ; on such a subject no authority except that of 
the Scriptures is admissible. They are introduced in 
opposition to the assertions of those who speak as if 
the verbal inspiration of the Bible was a novel doc- 
trine. 

FINIS. 



EDINBURGH : 
PRINTED BY BALLANTYNE AND COMPANY, 
PAUL'S WORK, CANONGATE. 



THE 

THEORIES OF INSPIRATION 

OF THE 

Rev. DANIEL WILSON, 
Rev. Dr PYE SMITH, 

AND THE 

Rev. Dr DICK, 

PROVED TO BE ERRONEOUS; 

W I T H R E M ARKS 

ON THE 

CHRISTIAN OBSERVER, & ECLECTIC REVIEW. 



ALEXANDER CARSON, A.M. 

MINISTER OF THE GOSPEL. 



PRINTED FOR W. WHYTE AND CO. EDINBURGH ; 
T. HAMILTON AND CO. LONDON ; 
W. CARSON, DUBLIN. 

1830. 



Printed by James Colston, East Rose Street , 
Hanover Street, Edinburgh. 



REVIEW, &c. 



Of all the subjects that have lately come under dis- 
cussion among Christians, that of the inspiration of 
the Holy Scriptures is doubtless the most important. 
The honour of Revelation, the comfort and edifiea* 
tion of the believer, and the truth of the express 
statements of the Scriptures themselves, demand our 
belief that the Bible, as originally given, is divine 

IN EVERY WORD. 

That they who deny the distinguishing doctrines 
of Christianity, should be anxious to free them- 
selves from the incumbrance of the inspiration of 
the records that contain it, or which comes to the 
same thing, should modify the doctrine so as to 
destroy it, while they retain the word, is very na- 
tural. Accordingly, such writers, while they nomi- 
nally acknowledge the inspiration of the Sacred Vo- 
lume, have contrived to accompany the admission 
with so many exceptions, to modify the theory into 
such a variety of forms, and to load the subject with 



2 



so many distinctions, that with the utmost facility 
they can make every obnoxious passage bend to 
their purpose. 

But that any real lover of the word of God, to 
whom it is sweeter than honey from the comb, and 
more precious than fine gold, and all the treasures 
of the earth, should in any measure give countenance 
to such profane and impious conduct, is most 
deeply to be deplored. Surely this is a thing most 
incongruous and inexcusable. Little, however, as 
this could have been anticipated, a number of wri- 
ters have appeared professing the most evangelical 
sentiments, yet with a more than Socinian zeal, la- 
bouring to lower the inspiration of the book of God: 
Whether they are overawed by German neology, 
and flatter themselves that by giving up a part, they 
can more successfully retain the remainder ; or whe- 
ther they labour under such an obtuseness of intel- 
lect as to be unable to penetrate the alleged difficul- 
ties, and really to be convinced that the Scriptures 
themselves require such modifications of their in- 
spiration, I shall not pretend to determine. What- 
ever may be the origin of such a sentiment, it is un- 
called for by any of the phenomena of Scripture, 
without foundation in the word of God itself, and 
directly contrary to its most express statements. 

The theory of Mr Wilson, as detailed in the 
XII 1th of his Lectures on the Evidences of Chris- 
tianity, is in words less shocking than that some time 
ago proposed by Dr. P. Smith, and the still more 
shocking system of the Ecclectic Review. Warned 
no doubt, by the reception of the extravagance of 



3 



those writers, Mr W. Las proceeded more cautious- 
ly, and indeed has expressed himself so guardedly, 
and with so little developement of system, that it is 
difficult to determine exactly what he means. 
From his many full and explicit recognitions of in- 
spiration, and from the want of detail or illustra- 
tion in the exposition of the theory itself, it is dif- 
ficult to convict him. We are rather obliged to 
interpret his meaning as a consequence, than we 
are enabled to refer to it in express statement. We 
must bring one part to bear upon another, in order 
to ascertain the extent of his doctrine. His theory 
is, that the Scriptures are partly human and partly 
divine : human in manner, divine in matter. The 
making of the Bible then has been a partnership 
business, in which God and man have had their 
distinct provinces. It is both human and divine, 
without mixture. Inspiration itself, he distinguishes, 
with many other writers on this subject, into four 
kinds or degrees, the inspiration of suggestion — of 
direction — of elevation — of superintendency. 

My first observation on this theory of distinct 
divine and human parts in the Scriptures, is, that 
it is not demanded by the facts or phenomena on 
which he grounds its necessity. These phenomena 
are summed up at page 499. " In order to collect 
' the phenomena on the other side/' says the au- 
thor, " let us open the New Testament again/' 
Very well, Mr Wilson : this is without doubt the 
only way to settle the controversy. Open then 
the New Testament, and if it teaches your theory, 
I shall submit to it with the most profound respect. 



4 



What then have yon found in the New Testament 
to support your doctrine ? " We see, 9 * says the 
author, " on the very face of the whole, that the 
' writers speak naturally, use the style, language, 
' manner of address familiar to them." Demon- 
stration, surely demonstration ! The writers of the 
New Testament speak naturally, therefore their 
writings are partly human ! So then in order to 
have had the Scriptures solely divine, the writers 
must have spoken unnaturally, or at least have 
avoided their natural manner. Is it then impossi- 
ble for God to speak through men in their natural 
manner, without making the communication partly 
human ? Could he not use their style and manner 
of address, as well as their mouth, or their pen, 
while both matter and words were his own ? Even 
in the use of the peculiar style of each writer, 
there is inspiration. The writers are not left, as 
Mr Wilson supposes, to use their own style ; it is 
a part of the divine wisdom to use this style, and 
the writers are as much under the influence of the 
Spirit in this, as m their conception of the most 
important doctrine. The Spirit of God uses the 
varied style of the writers. The writers are not 
left to themselves in this. The mould therefore 
is as much divine as the matter. When God speaks 
to man, he puts his thoughts and words into the 
form which is natural to those through whom he 
speaks. This serves many important purposes, of 
which not the least important is, that it serves as 
a touchstone to the dispositions of men with re- 
gard to Revelation. They who hate the truths 



5 



revealed, have, from this peculiarity of inspiration, 
a plausible pretence to deny inspiration altogether. 
They find in the Scriptures a variety of style, ac- 
cording to the number of the writers, and therefore 
ascribe all to man. This peculiarity serves also a 
valuable purpose with respect to Christians them- 
selves. By affording a pretence for speculations 
and theories, it manifests the mournful fact, that 
even they who have been enlightened in the sav- 
ing truth, have, in many other things, a large pro- 
portion of that worldly wisdom that savours not the 
things that are of God, but the things that are of 
men. 

" There are," continues our author, u peculiar 
4 casts of talents, expression, modes of reasoning in 
i each author." True, very true. Yet this does not 
imply that there is one word in the whole volume, 
as originally written, which is not God's. Is it not 
God who has given to men this peculiarity of ta- 
lents and modes of reasoning, and why could he 
not employ these in communicating his word? 

" The language is that of the country and age 
4 where they live." How does this phenomenon 
bear upon the theory ? " They employ all their fa- 
e culties ; they search, examine, weigh, reason, as 
4 holy and sincere men, in such a cause, might be 
■ supposed to do." Well, and in all these, may they 
not be inspired ? Is it not possible for the Holy 
Spirit to convey his own thoughts, and his own words, 
through the searching, examining, weighing, rea- 
soning of a man, as easily as if he spoke through 
a statue? The only thing that surprises me in all 



6 



this, i% that there should be any intellect to which 
this peculiarity of inspiration should, upon due 
consideration, present a difficulty on the suppo- 
sition of the complete verbal inspiration of the 
Scriptures. 

** They use all their natural and acquired know- 
c ledge." They use their knowledge both natural 
and acquired : But without doubt, they do not use 
all their own knowledge, whether natural or ac- 
quired. The Holy Spirit used as much of their 
knowledge, both natural and acquired, as was to his 
purpose. The natural and acquired knowledge of 
the writers of the Scriptures, so far as it is commu- 
nicated in the divine wcrd, is stamped with the same 
seal that impresses the discoveries of the character 
of God. 1 accept them as being as truly divine, as 
the gospel itself. " Their memory furnishes them 
s with facts, or the documents and authentic records of 
6 the time are consulted by them for information/' 
Very true ; but they do not relate every fact that 
they retained in their memory, or that they knew 
from documents. Nor were they left to their own 
discretion, as to the facts to be related. The Holy 
Spirit gave them their selection of facts, and the 
words to record them. They were as truly inspired 
in relating what they saw, or in copying a genealo- 
gical table, if ever they copied one, as in revealing 
the way of salvation. 

" They plead with those to whom they are sent, 
' they address the heart, they expostulate, they 
e warn, they invite." Is there any thing in all this, 
inconsistent w-ith the complete verbal inspiration of 



7 



the Scriptures ? Does this imply that the Scrip- 
tures are partly human ? What is there to prevent 
the belief, that these 'pleadings, these addresses to 
the heart, these expostulations, these warnings, 
these invitations, are all inspired fully in matter and 
words ? Was it impossible for the Holy Spirit to 
convey his pleadings, his addresses to the heart, his 
expostulations, his warnings, his invitations, by those 
of the inspired writers ? What inconsistency is 
there in supposing that the Holy Spirit would con- 
vey his own exhortations, in the words of an exhor- 
tation from an apostle, as inspired by him ? The 
only thing for which 1 am at a loss, is to conceive 
how a difficulty can be felt in this matter. 

" The mind of man is working every where." 
Very true ; the Holy Spirit speaks through man, 
not as he did through Balaam's ass, or as he might 
do through a statue, but as a rational instrument. 
But in all this working of the mind of man, there is 
nothing that is not truly God's. 

" In the historical books, the Evangelists follow 
1 their own trains of recollection ; they relate inci- 
' dents as they observe them, or were reported to 
6 thena." In whatever way they were put in pos- 
session of the matter related, they relate every thing 
as given them by the Holy Ghost. " In the devo- 
' tional and epistolary books, as:ain, natural talent, 
' appropriate feelings and judgment, the peculiarities 
6 of the individual are manifest." Who ever doubted 
this ? Such a peculiarity by no means implies that 
such compositions are partly human. It is quite con- 
sistent with the fact, that both matter and words are 
from God. 



8 



" Once more," says ourauther, "St Luke preserves 
4 his characteristic manner in the gospel and the Acts; 
e St Paul is always the same; St John may be known 
' in his several productions. Lastly, the prophetical 
* parts are more elevated ; and yet breathe the spi- 
4 rit, and retain the particular phraseology of the 
4 writers. These are the phenomena on the other 
' side ; these are the parts of man." 

Now that T might do the writer and my readers 
justice, I have quoted every line, and even every 
word of the account of the second class of phenome- 
na. And what is the whole but one fact, one phe- 
nomenon, namely, that each of the inspired writers 
exhibits his own characteristic style and mode of 
reasoning, and makes use of knowledge which could 
have been possessed without inspiration ! This fact 
might no doubt be illustrated, from Luke and Paul 
and John, and by a thousand references. Still it is 
but one fact, and a fact by no means even apparent- 
ly contradictory to the passages asserting full inspira- 
tion. Mr Wilson then imposes on his careless reader, 
when he gives to the illustration of one phenome- 
non, the appearance of a collection of phenomena; 
and he grossly misinterprets that part which exhibits 
it as in any way contradictory to the entire inspira- 
tion of the Scriptures. 

My second observation is, that Mr Wilson's two 
classes of phenomena, must either be reconciled on 
my plan, Or they are not reconcilable at all. If there 
is any thing in the Scriptures merely human, if man 
has one part in such a sense that the same thing can- 
not be ascribed to God, then such a part is not in- 



9 



spired, and cannot in any sense be called God's word. 
If the Bible is a book partly human and partly di- 
vine, it cannot, as a whole, be the word of God, nor 
be justly ascribed to him as its sole author. Accord- 
ingly, if Mr Wilson's paradoxes are not explained 
on the view which I have given, they are real con- 
tradictions. M If every thins/' says he, "is divine, 
' how is it that we see every thing human ?" Now, 
how is it that this paradox can be explained as a 
truth ? How is it that any thing in the word of God 
can be said to be human ? Onlyin the sense of hav- 
ing been written by man. But agreeable to the 
theory that God and man has each his distinct part in 
this composition, this paradox is a contradiction. If 
man has a part solely his own in the composition of 
the Bible, every thing in the Bible is not divine ; if 
God has his part in this composition, every thing can- 
not be human. The paradox must be harmonized 
not by a thing that ascribes distinct parts to God, or 
the writers in the composition of the book ; but by 
supposing that the Bible being the word of God, 
may in another point of view be ascribed to man as 
the instrument. In this sense, the epistle to the Ro- 
mans may be called Paul's epistle, while it is the 
word of God in a higher sense : such a mode of 
speaking is common on all subjects. The king built 
the palace, the architect built the palace, and the ma- 
sons built the palace . In this obvious light, we are to 
understand the passages that ascribe the different 
parts of the book of God to the writers of them. But 
this plain truth Mr Wilson has chosen to represent 



10 



as a paradox, and a paradox that from his explana- 
tion of it, must he a real contradiction. " The books," 
he says, "are human, and yet they are divine. — 
6 They are the word of God, and yet they are the 
' word of man." Now though in the above way, it is 
possible to explain this paradox in a harmless sense, 
yet that explanation is harsh, and not justified by the 
Scripture phraseology in which an epistle is ascribed 
to an Apostle. The latter mode of speaking is de- 
manded by necessity, justified by use on every sub- 
ject, and its meaning is obvious to a child. But the 
above paradoxes are not of this description ; the books 
of Scripture are never by the Scriptures called human 9 
they are never called the word of man. To call 
any thing human as contradistinguished from divine, 
as in this instance, is to deny that it is divine ; to call 
any thing the word of man as contradistinguished 
from the word of God, is to deny that it is the word 
of God. Mr Wilson's phraseology then is not only 
paradoxical, but improper, and not paralleled by any 
instance of Scripture phraseology. However, as I 
am fully convinced that the author had a harmless 
meaning, I charge him with nothing more than an 
impropriety of expression. But it is an impropriety 
that should not be considered as trifling, for a just 
explanation of it, according to the use of language, 
must make it fully as shocking in him as it is in ap- 
pearance. It is not to be justified on any principle 
to call the word of God either a human work, or 
the work of man. 

But the support of his theory, will not suffer Mr 
Wilson's paradoxes to shelter themselves under this 



11 



mode of explanation. " The books are divine, and 
' yet they are human/' — u they are the word of 
■ God, and yet the word of man." Now what are 
the grounds on which he asserts this ? Not merely 
that the book inspired by God, was written by man, 
but that God and man are jointly the authors of this 
book, each having a distinct share. If so, the books 
are not all divine, nor all human ; but partly divine 
and partly human, his theory then makes his para- 
doxes a contradiction. 

That what Mr Wilson calls his second class of 
phenomena, must be considered in the light in which 
I have represented them, is clear from his own ac- 
count of them, when he is reconciling them with the 
first class. When they are introduced to us for this 
purpose, they have the most innocent face imagin- 
able, without the smallest appearance of an impu- 
dent intention to derogate from the honours of inspi- 
ration. " Instead of addressing us immediately,' ' 
says the author, " God is pleased to use men as his 
4 instruments/' Now what can have less appear- 
ance of contradiction to the inspiration of every 
word of Scripture than this. It is so silly to state 
it in this light, that it is almost silly to repeat it. 
" Instead of speaking to us severally by an inde- 
' pendent revelation, he has consigned his will to 
* us at once in the Holy Scriptures." Now can any 
one conceive a light in which this even appears to 
bear on the point in hand ? As to inspiration, is it 
not the same thing whether God speaks to every in- 
dividual by a distinct revelation, or whether he speaks 
to all in the same revelation ? M Instead of making 



12 



* known that will/' says Mr Wilson, " in the lan- 

* guage of angels, or by the skill of poets and philo- 
' sophers, he has been pleased to choose the unlet- 
' tered Apostles and Evangelists." What has this 
to do with the subject of inspiration ? How does 
this fact appear to contradict the passages that as- 
cribe the Scriptures wholly to God ? Why is this 
introduced as a fact to be reconciled with the first 
class of phenomena ? Does the fact, that in the 
Scriptures God has not addressed U9 in the language 
of angels, appear to contradict the notion of their 
inspiration, either as to matter or manner ? If God 
should speak to men in the language of angels, would 
the revelation be God's, in any sense, in which it is 
not His, as contained in the Scriptures } Had he 
spoken by the skill of poets and philosophers, would 
the manner have been divine, in any sense in 
which it is not now divine ? Has he not given 
some parts of the Scriptures in the language of poe- 
try ? Are these more divine as to manner, than the 
parts written by the fishermen? 46 And," says Mr 
Wilson, " instead of using these as mere organic in- 

* struments of his power, he has thought right to 
' leave them to the operations of their own minds, 

* and the dictates of their own knowledge, habits, 
1 and feelings, as to the manner of communicating 

* his will." This is the only thing that can be said to 
have any reference to the subject at all ; yet, if unex- 
ceptionably expressed, it would not have even the ap- 
pearance of a contradiction to the phenomena of the 
first class. God did not leave the writers of Scrip- 
ture to the operations of their own mind, &c. ; but 



13 



he has employed the operations of their mind in his 
work. Here then we see, that in reconciling his 
two classes of phenomena, the writer exhibits the 
second class in the most harmless point of view, and 
it is only in his application of the system afterwards, 
that he gives them a different character. The 
light then in which the two classes of phenomena 
can be reconciled, is not a light in which they will 
bear the author's conclusions. 

My third observation is, that the distinction between 
matter and form, as to their author, is a groundless 
figment, invented for the service of this theory. God 
is as much the author of the manner of the Scrip- 
tures, as of the matter of them; and the sense in 
which they may be said to be human in their man- 
ner, they may be said to be human in their matter, 
In what sense are they human in their manner ? As 
they have been written by men, after the manner of 
human writing, with the style characteristic of those 
by whom they have been written. And has not the 
matter of these been the result of human thought 
according to the operations of the mind, and with 
language occurring to the persons who were inspired 
to deliver them? The Scriptures are the thoughts 
and words of the writers, in the same sense in which 
they are in their style. It has pleased God to com- 
municate his will in this way ; so that divine truth 
is ushered into the world as the result of the opera- 
tions of the human mind. Even the most glorious 
doctrines of revelation, are not an exception to this. 
If we find Paul's style, we find also Paul's gospel; 



14 



and his statements of truth, his arguments, &c. &c* 
are as much his, as his manner of writing. In the 
same sense that we can say, that the style is Paul's, 
we can also say, that the thoughts are Paul's, 
They are both Paul's in one point of view ; in an- 
other, they are both God's. God, in conveying his 
truth, has used the intellectual operations, as well as 
the characteristic style of the writers whom he em- 
ployed. 

If this is the case with respect, even to the dis- 
tinguishing doctrines of the gospel, how much more 
evidently is it so with respect to those parts of Scrip- 
ture that relate to things properly human. How 
much of the Scriptures are employed in relating 
the history of earthly things? Is not this human 
matter, as truly as it is related in human style ? 
But though, in one sense, both in matter and man- 
ner, an historical event is human ; in another, it is 
divine in both. This writer is still more inexcus- 
able for such a distinction, since he seems to hold, 
that many things in Scripture needed only divine 
superintendency. Are not such things then, in 
every sense human ; in matter as well as in man- 
ner? Besides, is it not as common to ascribe the 
matter of the Scripture to the writers of them, as 
to ascribe their manner? Do we not speak of 
Paul's Epistles? Is not the matter included in 
this appellation ? This ascribes every thing in the 
Epistles of Paul, in one sense, to himself. We 
speak more frequently of Paul's thoughts, Paul's 
doctrine, Paul's reasoning, Paul's arguments, than 
we do of Paul's style. Yet the simplest peasant 



15 



never views this phraseology as inconsistent with his 
firm conviction of the full verbal inspiration of the 
whole Sacred volume. Such difficulties are only 
conjured up by the invention of theorists, to make 
void some part of the word of God, or to enlarge 
the field of critical investigation. 

That a human style may, in another sense, be 
divine, may be made intelligible to a child by an il- 
lustration. Suppose, to give greater popularity to 
a work of genius, a writer should choose to imitate 
the style and manner of Sir Walter Scott ; and 
that the imitation should be so perfect, that the pub- 
lic could not distinguish. Now, such a style would 
be, in one sense, the style of Sir Walter ; but in 
another, it w r ould be the style of the author. In 
like manner, the style of the Scriptures, is the cha- 
racteristic style of the different writers, but God is 
the author of it. The style is as truly God's, as 
the matter; for if he has employed the style of 
different writers, he has likewise employed the ex- 
pressions, thoughts, reasoning, and arguments of the 
different writers. In one sense, the Scriptures are 
all God's ; in another, they are the writings of 
Moses and the Prophets, the Evangelists and the 
Apostles. The same writer, on different occasions, 
may employ different styles ; and God has em- 
ployed the characteristic style of each of the per- 
sons whom he inspired to deliver his oracles. If 
he has employed them as rational instruments with 
respect to style, he has likewise employed them as 
rational instruments with respect to thoughts, rea- 
soning, arguments and words. 



16 



That the different styles of the writers of Scrip- 
ture may, in a certain sense, be ascribed to God, is 
clear, even from the concession of the author. He 
admits, that the prophetic part of Scripture needed 
the inspiration of words ; and that in this, as well 
as in the rest of the Scriptures, we have a charac- 
teristic style. If then we have the style of Isaiah, 
even when all the words with their collocation and 
syntax were chosen of God, is not the style his al- 
so ? For what is style abstracted from the words 
that express it ? The distinction, then, between 
the matter and manner of Scripture, as having a 
different author, is visionary and groundless. 

My fourth observation is, that Mr Wilson's theo- 
ry, both as to the distinction between matter and 
manner, and as to the different degrees of their ope- 
ration, is utterly without foundation in the word 
of God itself. What can we know of this, or of 
any other subject of revelation, but as the Scrip- 
tures themselves teach us ? But where do they 
teach these distinctions ? What portion of the 
word of God asserts, that the matter and the man- 
ner of Scripture are to be ascribed to different 
authors? Where do they teach, that there are 
different kinds of inspiration? If no such doctrine 
is taught by the Scriptures, then it is one of the 
traditions of men, by which they, like the Phari- 
sees, have made void the word of God. It de- 
serves no respect. It is not necessary even to refute 
it; for to shew that the Scriptures do not teach 
such a thing, is to refute it. The Scriptures de- 
clare, that they are the inspired word of God ; but 



17 



in the whole Sacred Volume, there is not a hint, 
that they are inspired in a different sense, or in a 
different degree. The man, therefore, who invents 
a theory, that ascribes to Scripture different kinds 
of inspiration, is as inexcusable, as the man who, 
in explaining the account of the creation, asserts 
that the earth was an old planet repaired, or a 
splinter from the sun. Where have our theorists 
found, that inspiration is divided into suggestion, 
direction, elevation, and superintendence? Where 
the Pharisees found that it was a sin to eat with 
unwashen hands. 

But let us not too hastily make assertions Let 
us hear what Mr Wilson alleges : " By refer- 

* ring to the language of the Apostles, as quot- 
1 ed in our last lecture, we shall rind that the 
' divine inspiration was extended to every part 
4 of the canonical writings, in proportion as each 
' part stood related to the religion/' 505. The 
language of the Apostles. — I do not wish a bet- 
ter authority. The language of the Apostles teach 
such a doctrine! Where, Mr Wilson? You have 
quoted no such passage. u Whatever weight the 

* different parts of the Sacred edifice were intended 
1 to sustain, a correspondent strength of inspiration 
1 was placed, as it were, at the foundation/' Fine, 
very fine; and is demonstration itself more convinc- 
ing ? What can be more certain, than that the 
different parts of a building ought to have a strength 
proportional to the weight which they are intended 
to bear? Unluckily it happens, that there is a 
small flaw in the figure. It has not the smallest 

B 



18 



reference to the subject which it is brought to 
illustrate. The different truths of revelation have 
a different degree of importance, which might be 
well illustrated by this truly beautiful figure. But 
it requires as much inspiration to tell what 
o'clock it is by inspiration, as to reveal the gospel 
itself. If all Scripture is given by inspiration, the 
reference to Paul's cloak requires as much inspira- 
tion, as those passages that declare the way of sal- 
vation. The question is not, whether many things 
in Scripture might have been known without in- 
spiration, as there are unquestionably others that 
could not at all have been otherwise known : But 
the question is, whether the most trivial thing said 
to be inspired, can be inspired in any other sense 
than things of utmost moment. As long as it stands 
recorded, " All Scripture is given by inspiration of 
God/' so long the honour of revelation is as much 
concerned in the inspiration of an incidental allusion, 
as in that of the most fundamental truth. 

In the following extract, the author gives us 
a specification of different things that require a 
different extent of inspiration, but which have no 
reference to the subject at all. " Sometimes," 
says he, " we read of divine messages by visions, 
( dreams, angelic voices; at other times the Al- 
' mighty appears to have revealed truth immediate- 
' ly to the minds of the Apostles." Now, had the 
author proposed to point out the different ways in 
which revelation was given, this would have been 
to his purpose. But it has no relation to the ex- 
tent of inspiration. Whether a thing were revealed 



19 



by a vision, dream, or angelic voice ; or without 
any intervention, the degree of inspiration is the 
same. " Sometimes," he continues, "the sacred 

* writers were wrapt in the overpowering com- 

* munications of the spirit, At other times, and 
' as the matter varied, their memory was fortified 
6 to recal the Saviour's life, doctrines, miracles, 
' parables, discourses." Had Paul been permit- 
ted to relate what he saw in the third heavens, the 
extent of the inspiration of his account of the 
matter, would not have been greater than when 
he relates his own history. If his account of the 
latter be a part of the Scriptures, it is given 
by the inspiration of God ; and therefore is God's 
both in matter and words. Who told Mr 
Wilson, that in the account of the Saviour's life, 
doctrines, miracles, parables, discourses, the 
memory of the Apostles was merely fortified ? 
Has he got any new message from heaven? 
Perhaps it will be said, this was all that 
was necessary ; this would be arrogance in an 
angel, and would deliver him into chains of 
darkness to be reserved for the judgment of the 
great day. Vain men will be wise ! who can 
tell what is necessary on such a subject, but 
God only? Who dare make distinctions, where 
God has made none ? God has said, "All Scripture 
' is given by inspiration of God," without any 
Lint of different degrees of inspiration. Who then 
dare say that one part of Scripture is less inspired 
than another? besides, a man's memory might be 
so fortified, that he could remember every fact 



20 



and circumstance with the utmost exactness, he 
might be able to relate every thing that ever he 
heard, with every word in its proper place ; and 
after all, be unfit for writing any of the gospels. 
Were an illiterate man to be put in possession of 
every fact in Gibbons' History, would be be fit to 
write the decline and fall of the Roman Empire? 
Such a man will have full as much need of words 
as of ideas. Much more in the history of Christ, 
must an inspired writer have all the matter and 
all the words. None but the Holy Spirit can 
judge what is to be expressed, and what is to be 
omitted; and in what phraseology it can be most 
suitably exhibited. When an inspired writer gives 
us an account of his own feelings, we depend 
not on either his knowledge, or expression. 
Though he speaks concerning what is most in- 
timately known to him, he speaks the things of 
God, in the words of God. " In a different matter," 
continues Mr Wilson, " an author accompanies 
' St Paul, and records what he saw and heard. 
' Again, an Apostle hears of dissentions in the 
' churches, and is moved by the blessed spirit 
' to write to them, to denounce judgments, to 
' prescribe a course of conduct. At other times, 
' he enters upon a series of divine argument ; 
' delivers in order the truths of the gospel, or 
' expounds the figurative economy of Moses." 
Very true, very true. But in all these things there 
is but one kind of inspiration. All this is called 
the word of God, and is said to be given by inspira- 
tion ; and therefore in matter and words must be 



21 



God's. Do the Scriptures any where speak of these 
things as being differently inspired? not one word 
of all this is in the least to the purpose. 

The author does not pretend to determine the 
extent of inspiration in each of these cases, but he 
says, " we infer from the uniform language of the 
' New Testament, that in each case such assis- 
' tance, and only such assistance was afforded, as 
1 the emergencies of it required." Now, as I set 
as much value upon a legitimate inference from the 
word of God, as [ do^an express declaration, I have 
a great curiosity to hear what is this uniform lan- 
guage of the New Testament, from which such a 
limitation and distinction of inspiration are inferred. 
In no copy of the New Testament that ever hap- 
pened to fall into any hands, is there the slightest 
hint on the subject. 

But after declaring that it is neither needful nor 
possible to determine the extent of in-piration in 
each case, the author gives us a most edifying page, 
in an attempt to draw that line which it is neither 
needful nor possible to draw. 1 have heard of a 
divine who in one head of discourse, proposed to 
speak of the revealed glories of heaven ; and in 
another the unre\ealed glories of heaven. Surely 
Mr Wilson's intrepid attempt to do what is neither 
needful nor possible, manifests equal theological 
heroism. " The prophetical parts, the doctrines 
' of pure revelation, the historical facts beyond 
' the reach of human knowledge, all the great out- 
' lines of Christianity, both as to doctrine and 
6 practice, were probably of the inspiration of sug- 



22 



gestion, both as to the matter and the words, 
(for we think in words.) Where the usual 
means of information, or the efforts of memory 
' were enough, as in most of the gospels and acts, 
■ the inspiration of direction may be supposed to 
f have sufficed. Where the exposition of duty, 
' or the rebuke of error, or exhortation to growth 
' in grace, was the subject, the inspiration of ele- 
' vation and strength may be considered as afforded. 
6 When matters more incidental occur, the inspira- 
c tion, still lessening with the necessity, was 
6 probably that of superintendency only, preserving 
e from all improprieties which might diminish the 
6 effect of the whole, and providing for inferior, 
* but not unimportant points of instruction. Even 
' the slightest allusions to proverbial sayings, to 
s the works of nature, to history, were possibly 
' not entirely out of the range of the watchful 
' guardianship of the Holy Spirit." Here is a la- 
mentable specimen of the folly and arrogance of 
the wisdom of man in the things of God. This 
grave evangelical divine parcels out the Scriptures 
according as he fancies that they are more or less 
the word of God ; and pronounces his opinions on 
subjects which he himself confesses are untaught 
in the Scriptures. This is the worst species of 
novel- writing; for it substitutes the baseless proba- 
bilities, and visionary suppositions of man, for the 
dictates of the Holy Spirit. Jt pretends to give us 
information on a point of which it is admitted, 
we are not informed by the word of God. What 
sort of instruction then can this be ? What sort of 



23 



a mind is it that can derive edification from it? Just 
that sort of mind that receives for doctrines the 
commandments of men. In the things of God the 
Christian should know nothing but what God has 
revealed. To say that this is a foolish and un- 
taught question, would not be enough, because it is 
contrary to what is expressly taught ; namely, that 
all Scripture is given by inspiration of God. Mr 
Wilson has here given us an apocrypha to the New 
Testament; and like the apocrypha added to the 
Old Testament, it contradicts the inspired records. 
How could we say that all Scripture is given by 
inspiration of God, if it is merely possible that some 
things in them are not entirely out of the range of 
the watchful guardianship of the Holy Spirit? Is 
the Christian then to be sent to his Bible to decide 
how far each of its parts is inspired? If he is set 
loose from the authority of the divine declaration 
that asserts the inspiration of the whole equally, 
will Mr Wilson's possibly be an anchor to him, 
when his passions, or his interests urge him? If Mr 
Wilson by his own authority decides, that inspira- 
tion possibly extends so far, others by a like au- 
thority may decide that possibly it does not go 
so far. Though 1 should displease all the evangeli- 
cal ministers of London, and of Europe, I will ex- 
press my utter abhorrence of sentiments so dishon- 
ourable to the word of my Lord, so injurious to the 
edification of Christians, so destructive to the souls 
of men. 

My fifth observation is, that this distinction of in- 
spiration is an ungodly attempt to explain away the 



24 



thing, and retain the word. In fact, not one of the 
divisions is inspiration, but the first. Direction is 
not inspiration, elevation is not inspiration, superin- 
tendency is not inspiration. Do not all the evange- 
lical ministers of London claim these three? Do 
they not constantly pray for them ? Do they not 
ask direction from God in their teaching ? Are they 
not sometimes elevated above the power of nature ? 
Do they not speak of divine superintendency in their 
places of worship ? But were I to assert from this, 
that Mr Wilson pretends to be inspired, I would re- 
present him as a fanatic ; and my representation 
would be a calumny, not justified by his pretensions 
to divine direction, elevation, and superintendency. 
If then, the Scriptures are in many things the work 
of man merely directed, elevated, and superintended 
by God, it is a falsehood to say, that they are all in- 
spired. Since then, the Scriptures assert, that they 
are all given by inspiration, he who asserts, that 
much of them is only the work of men, directed, 
elevated, and superintendedhy God, gives the lie to 
the Holy Spirit, and calumniates the Scriptures. 
This is a serious charge, and I charge it on Mr Wil- 
son, and those writers who have used this wicked 
theory of inspiration. By this Jesuitical artifice, we 
may both admit and deny any thing. We have no- 
thing to do but in our explanation to subject the word 
to an analysis, not directed by its use, but by our 
own fancies, or the necessities of our system, and 
the work is accomplished. 

My sixth observation is, that if this distinction of 
inspiration is true, the greatest part of the Bible is 



25 



not the word of God at all. When a pupil writes 
a theme by the direction of his teacher, with every 
help usually afforded ; and when it is so corrected by 
the latter, that nothing remains but what is proper 
in his estimation, is it not still the pupil's produc- 
tion ? Could it be said to be the composition, or 
the work of the teacher? No more can the Scrip- 
tures be called the word of God, according to this 
mischievous theory, A book might all be .true, 
and good, and important, yet not be the book of God. 
To be God's book, it must be his, in matter and> 
in words, in substance and in form.* ^ 
My seventh observation is, that the author^ 
seems to admit the dangerous position, that some 
things delivered by the inspired writers, may not 
belong to the revelation ; and that speaking on sub- 
jects not of a religious nature, they may have erred. 
This blasphemy has been openly avowed by some 
writers, and Mr Wilson certainly avows it, as a 
last resource, in case of necessity, but does not ac- 
tually in any instance avail himself of its aid. To 
shew that I am justified in ascribing this sentiment 
to him, I will quote his language, on which I found 
my charge. 6$ How far the inspiration of the 
' Scriptures extends to the most casual and remote 
* allusions of an historical and philosophical kind, 
' which affect in no way the doctrines or duties of 
' religion, it is not, perhaps, difficult to determine/' 
Does not this seem to betray a fear, that history 
and philosophy may detect something false in the 
Scriptures, for which the author good naturally 
provides, by supposing that such things do not af- 



26 



feet the doctrines and duties of religion. God 
asserts most expressly, that " All Scripture is given 
' by inspiration;" but history and philosophy may find 
some falsehoods in it. Mr Wilson, in this critical si- 
tuation, most generously steps forward and excuses 
them, by alleging that they do not affect the doc- 
trines or the duties of religion. Would Mr Wil- 
son take it kindly, if any one should attempt a like 
apology for himself ? Would a jury look on it as 
no invalidation of evidence, that the witness is 
proved to have uttered many falsehoods on his oath, 
though not bearing on the question at issue ? Would 
they not utterly discredit his whole testimony, if 
they found a known falsehood in his evidence, even 
on the most unconnected matters that are usually 
brought forward in cross-examination ? If God 
avows the whole Scriptures as his word, a falsehood 
^ ^ as to any thing will affect the revelation. The 
6i*> to jBi'ble must not utter a philosophical lie, nor an his- 
^-/A*. ttU& toncal lie, more than a religious lie. It it lies 
^/^^^ on one subject, who will believe it on another! If 
ot^> it lies as to earthly things, who will believe it about 
heavenly things? But Mr Wilson asserts, that 
" The claims of the sacred penmen to an unerring 
' guidance, are, without exception, confined to the 
' revelation itself/' God's assertion of inspiration 
extends to every thing that can be called Scripture. 
<f All Scripture is given by inspiration of God." 
Even the sayings of wicked men and of devils are 
recorded by inspiration, as truly as the sayings of 
Christ himself. There is nothing in Scripture that 
does not belong to the revelation. What an infi- 



27 



del invention is this, that suggests a distinction in 
the book of God, between things that belong to the 
revelation, and things that do not belong to it ! If 
even our evangelical divines will except from inspi- 
ration some things under the denomination of his- 
tory and philosophy, not affecting the religion; what 
may not be expected from the daring profaneness of 
those who hate the gospel, and are willing to carry 
the theory to its utmost limits ? If Mr Wilson is 
allowed to charge an historical, or a philosophical 
falsehood on the penmen of Scripture, may not Dr ^ 
Priestley be allowed to charge inconclusive reason- 
ing on an epistle ? The Bible then, it seems, is not ^ r r; a -/^ 
all the word of God:^only so much of it deserves *f e 
that title, as affects the doctrines and the duties of£ 
religion. This accounts very obviously for the con- ^ , 
duct of some evangelical divines, with respect to the *>cc* * * 
circulation of the Apocrypha intermingled with the \ ,cc -— ^ 
Scriptures. If they have found that all the Scrip- f*f cJ -, / - J ^ 
tures do not themselves belong to the revelation of 
God, it is not surprising if they add a little more to 
them, to make them more palatable to the world. 

But, observes Mr Wilson, " The Bible was not 
1 given us to make us poets, or orators, or historians, 
4 or natural philosophers." "Very true, very true, 
but very silly. We must overlook the bad poetry 
and bad oratory of the Bible, if we find any of this 
description in it ; and we have no reason to expect 
a complete history of human affairs, nor a system 
of natural philosophy. But, verily, if the Scrip- 
tures contained one rule of poetry or oratory, that 
rule must be a legitimate one, or the Bible is a for- 



ho Ufa UJ U^L&^hdtMf Lu-b^AA. I*- tJcfiy ft? rftucK po^Jj 
[ l cl ] It C^tc' ft ^ 5 r ^ ^ ^ £ ^ e ' H * c r " ^ 1 fc*^^^^**^^ <| r| ^ ^ 1 " £ ^ !fr 

fulfil jcuulSVy- And if it tells one historical untruth, it must 
Jy4*~%i eWforfeit its pretensions in every thing, seeing its pre- , 
<X£ — tensions extend to every thing in the book. The ~ 

£L Ux^ftA^(r^j nS pJ re ^ wr j ters J lave ^ een as jg noran (; f na - ^ 3| 

r$ ~ &*^tural philosophy, as the most ignorant of British * «*> 1 

£ju^2) if peasants, without affecting their inspiration. But, 3 ^ 
uHU^wxX^ ver ^7» if nave delivered one philosophical * ^ 

^ t cc fL^Wj^ dogma, it must\either be true, or the Scriptures asa J J 
i^t,c-e»*X^ whole are false. \For my part, I am convinced that * 
\uu, f fo$L, i*- to look into the Scriptures for a system of philoso- ^ 5 
a iA,£<^tkxijphy t j s utterly to degrade them. But it would de- 4 ■ 
f ^^^^T^grade them much more, it would utterly blast ^ • 
xSLt ,r, their pretensions, to allege that they have attempt- J 

ivuuWKf e <l and failed. I must ha\e the inspired writers | 
LcdC eJUcU- cleared of the accusation of pledging themselves to ^ 
luWoy iL — a philosophical untruth, as weK v asto a religious un- | 
W-M^eUcfctruth. If the Scriptures are not, designed to com- J 
r^-u^ ^^fmand our faith on points of philosophy, they do not 5 
wul } ou o^trvy t eacn any thing on the subject. HoV very deroga- j 
^ e ^|^^tory then to the honour of inspiration,, is the fol- | 
uc'D kv«u i^p ow * n § conclusion : — " Many things wjiich such ^ 
lz ^JrLdu.uc f persons/' (namely poets, orators, historians, and ^ 
^kf ilu (V 1 /? natural philosophers,) "might think inaccurate, 4 
•jjfyUvu* } ) /iaa*lA 9 may consist with a complete religious inspiration." / x 
< <uu^. iLlu^ >«Ho w can this be the case, Mr Wilson, when H is H 
^Slvte^ said ' " A11 Scri P ture is S iven b y inspiration ?" This' ^ 
^aIjI- kJn pledges equally for every thing in the Bible.*K 
^ Uv( ^4. o ^2jMr Wilson's assertion gives the lie to God's decla- 
i^-^u^J4c rat i° n - God says " All Scripture is given by in- 
4vUl *U fjnixf spiration;" Mr Wilson says it is false, — only so 
Udi^c, much of the Scripture is given by inspiration, as be- 
^v»7 vsxjl^ ] 0I? g S to reve i a ti on> This blasphemous doctrine 

JL Bu-tu^ti <A ..... 

itJfvau-stxXL UlA tout tU^JL wu. \o^o to tat<*-<~uh. ~iiii^(u> aholuldyi** 
lit.. ftuL r.uo^J ^avat^^ hook fl/u^x^ U^fj^cZfo^ oU&> ^Msui^ti^ - _ 
Lcn- Ql- Justus ^AX^ ,Ok.,\h^^ 4 J^cUuJo'Xjf, cJa^ ^ccru'uic oJl^kt^U- (ijujw^ 




foul- 'back * cU> tblUtdjLA JUXJLlJL U~- >£l StXcjOt^ y to %4 ifi*MC*#*X 

teaches Christians to go through the Scriptures, se-~ v 
paratins; what belongs to revelation from what does ~Zf7~l. ■ i 
not belong to revelation, to distinguish what is true , v 
from what may be false. Could Satan broach a -^c^cu- 
worse doctrine in the school of Christ? Impossi- . # 
ble. It would not be so mischievous, if in the bold- ' 
ness of infidelity, he were to assert through his' 
agents, that the Scriptures are not at all inspired. 
This would be too shocking. From this all Chris- 
tians would start back with horror. But when, as 
an angel of light, he asserts through the pen of an 
evangelical minister, that some falsehoods in Scrip- 
ture are not only consistent with the most complete 
religious inspiration, but that this is the strongest 
ground on which it is possible to vindicate inspira- 
tion, he is likely to infuse his poison into the soul 
of many simple and unwary disciples of Christ. 

But in the very phraseology of this exceptionable 
sentiment, there is a management which, to say the 
least, does not savour of godly sincerity. Such per- 
sons might think inaccurate. Was the author 
ashamed in plain language to make the wicked as- 
sertion ? His meaning must be that such things are 
really inaccurate. This is the only point of view 
in which the assertion is to his purpose. Why then 
does he falter? Does he think that this soft way 
of charging God with falsehood, will excuse the 
daringness of the crime ? Was it caution, or was 
it conscience, that induced him to utter the horrible 
blasphemy, as the sentiment of others? 

And what artifice appears in the association of 
falsehoods in history and philosophy, with critical 



80 



faults in poetry and oratory ! Are errors in fact io 
be ranged with errors in rhetorick? Is it the same 
thing in morals to be a liar and a bad poet ? Is 
the poetry, to which just taste has never made an 
exception, to be brought into question, merely for 
the sake of softening delinquencies as to truth? 

The author next gives us a quotation from Bishop 
Horseley, that shews that this truly great scholar 
did not know well what to say on this subject. He 
admits, yet is unwilling to make the supposition. 
As usual, when a writer is in a cloud, he has paren- 
thesis upon parenthesis, and says more than enough 
on things nothing to the purpose; while he still 
leaves the question as he found it. I shall give the 
extract: — <e It is most certain," says Horseley, 
* that a divine revelation — in other words, a disco- 
6 very of some part of God's own knowledge made 
' by God himself — must be perfectly free from all 
' mixture of human ignorance and error, in the par- 
e ticular subject in which the discovery is made." 
Well then, my good Bishop, must not this apply to 
the motion or rest of the earth, if it is really taught, 
as well as to the character of God ? " The discovery 
' may/' he continues, <f and unless the powers of 
6 ' the human mind were infinite, it cannot but be ]i- 
' mited and partial, but as far as it extends, it must 
4 be accurate." All true, but all away from the 
mark. No man ever felt a difficulty on this point. 
This is not debated by either infidel or Christian ; 
by either the friends of plenary inspiration, or the 
abettors of partial inspiration. <e In whatever re- 
6 lates, therefore," he continues, 6i to religion, either 



■ ' - y 'J/ l 



U^jjc^ik^ i^dl'uf fU (Ufa sj-Pf^ djlPSt^Jf, ^V^v^/ 
Ktl W0L4 ^k^a\xA^dc*^ "XLmZL^ 4 (?(L ' t^Ju^J Mrd4 <^Kt^)/u^e/- ? 

* in theory or practice, the knowledge of the sacred 
' writers was infallible, or their inspiration was a 

* mere pretence." And must not thei r ins pira tion 
be a mere pretence, i f thereyis an y thing delivered 
by them, which is not inspired ; since they assert of 

all Scripture that it is given by inspiration? Where ^^^t 
is the distinction to be found between religion, and^W^^^ 
things supposed not to be religious ? * ^ vWd^tC 

" Though I admit," continues the Bishop, " the i-jK^s.^ 
6 possibility of an inspired teacher's error Qf^uw^tfw^ 
6 opinion in subjects which he is not sent to^^-[ CLua 
6 teach. But is he not sent to teach everything, — ^7-7 
that he has taught? If he gives us a bad lesson ^ 
in philosophy, it will condemn him, as well qs p*3*-J/- 
if he had given us bad morality. If he was not sent to 
teach us philosophy, let him keep his philosophy to 
himself. There must be none of it in the Scriptures. 
But he in a parenthesis, gives us an irrefraga- 
ble reason for this; " (because inspiration is notomni- 
' science, and some things there must be which it 
6 will leave untaught.)" This might be very much 
to the purpose, if the opponent was so very unrea- 
sonable as to insist that the Bible, to be an inspired 
book, must teach philosophy, yea, that a divine 
teacher must be omniscient, and leave nothing un- 
taught. But of what use is it, with respect to the 
man who charges false philosophical dogmas, as 
taught by the Scriptures ? There is a mighty dif- 
ference between refusing to speak, and speaking a 
falsehood. It is, however, with great reluctance, 
that this learned bishop goes so far. For he adds, 
" yet I confess it appears to me no very probable 
' supposition (and it is, as I conceive, a mere sup- 



32 



* position, not yet confirmed by any one clear in- 
' stance,) that an inspired writer should be permitted, 

* in his religious discourses, to affirm a false propo- 
'* sition on any subject, or in any history to misre- 
' present a fact/' Here the bishop is almost, 
though not altogether, such as he should be. This 
indeed is a very important thing. But if the learn- 
ed writer had considered the matter in the view of 
the direct assertion of the inspiration of all Scrip- 
ture, there can be no doubt that he would have 
taken higher ground. If it is only a supposition, 
a supposition not demanded by any one clear in- 
stance, why should the wicked supposition be made ? 
Especially since it is true, as the bishop adds, 
''Theirlanguage, too, notwithstanding the accommo- 
' dation of it that might be expected for the sake of 
6 the vulgar, to the notions of the vulgar, is, I believe, 
' far more accurate, more philosophically accurate in 
' its allusions than is generally imagined." Indeed 
the language referred to, can scarcely be called an 
accommodation to the prejudices of the vulgar, but is 
rather a speaking in the usual way of men, without 
excepting philosophers themselves. If the sun and 
the moon are said to have stood still in the time of 
Joshua, there is no philosophical sentiment express- 
ed, more than when the philosopher himself now 
speaks of the rising and the setting of the sun. 
There is not the smallest difficulty thrown on the 
subject from this quarter. It is only foolish divines 
who wish to have employment for their learn- 
ing and ingenuity, that contrive difficulties to be 
resolved by theoretical explanations. Mr Wilson 



33 



himself, after quoting the bishop's words, seems to 
feel a little contrition for his previous language, and 
makes a strong effort to reconcile his views with 
those of this luminary of his church. u Perhaps," 
says he, " it is therefore better, and more consistent 
' with all the Scripture language, to say, that the 
* inspiration of superintendance, reached even to 
' the least circumstances and most casual allusions 
' of the sacred writers, in the proportion which 
' each bare to the revelation itself." There is a 
happy obscurity in this qualification, which, if it 
prevents us from using it to advantage, also serves 
to screen it from exposure. But if certain errors 
in Scripture are reconcilable with the doctrine of 
complete religious inspiration, how is it better to say 
the contrary ? Are we on this subject to say and 
suppose whatever fits our theories ? My way is to 
endeavour to find what the Scriptures say, and to this 
I make every human dogma to bend. I will not 
allow philosophy herself to prate on the things of 
God. She is august in her own territories, but let 
her die should she dare to invade the territories of 
revelation. On this holy ground her profane foot 
must not tread. 

But after our author doubtfully consents, that 
inspiration may extend to the least circumstances, 
which, in his estimation, is more than is necessary, 
he gives two reasons for his opinion, which are al- 
most as little satisfactory to me as unbelief itself. 
Why does Mr Wilson believe, that inspiration is 
thus extensive ? Is it because the Scriptures them- 
selves say so, which are the only authority on the 
c 



34 



subject? No, truly; this is not the ground on 
which he rests the matter. His two reasons are, 
that philosophy has no objection to this view, and 
that practical uses may be derived from the slight- 
est details, and most apparently indifferent circum- 
stances. Now, there can be no doubt, that divine 
truth must be perfectly consistent^ with true know- 
ledge of every kind, and must have some use ; but 
it is equally true, that this is not a proper crite- 
rion for judging of the contents of Scripture. A 
thing may be consistent with all other knowledge, 
and may have practical uses, yet not be a part of 
divine revelation. Had I, then, no other reason for 
the inspiration of the passages referred to, I would 
not believe it. That Paul was inspired in directing 
Timothy to bring his cloak, I believe, because this 
is a part of Scripture, and the Scriptures inform 
me, that " All Scripture is given by inspiration of 
God." Mr Wilson believes Paul to be inspired in 
this direction, because he fancies it is not destitute 
°f practical use. I believe it to have practical use, 
K/CUd.u^, because it is the words of inspiration. If it is not 
^^^/^J ns P lre d, because it is a part of Scripture, it is im- 
^ t^lw- ^P oss ^ e to know that it is inspired ; and it is mere 
, fanaticism to deduce instruction from it. Even 
oL u^fU fttj. then, when Mr Wilson holds the truth on this sub- 
I . $u^i?lh*- c iect, he does not hold it on its proper evidence ; 
^/^^;^and, therefore, does not truly hold it at all. This, 
l fZ d^d^uoL some may appear a trifling consideration. But 
u ^a-^t^, it is a thing, on every part of divine truth, of pri- 
^^ V ^ 7 ^ '^ ar y importance. We must believe God without 
A / , 'a voucher. On hearing a traveller relate some 



35 



wonderful fact, if we should hesitate to believe 
him, till some other gentleman should interpose the 
authority of his experience, would the narrator be 
satisfied with our credence? Would he not consi- 
der himself most grossly insulted? And is it not 
perfectly the same thing, when we believe the in- 
spiration of the % direction about the cloak and 
parchments, and the prescription to Timothy to take 
a little wine for his stomach's sake, not because 
these are parts of Scripture, and that " All Scrip- 
ture is given by inspiration of God ;" but because 
some evangelical divine can extract edification for 
us from these portions of the word of God ? A 
passage may contain instruction, yet we may be un- 
able to see it. Are we then to hesitate about its in- 
spiration till we can find the looked for edification ? 
Does not this warrant the denial of the most impor- 
tant truths of the gospel, when individuals cannot per- 
ceive their advantage ? Does not this justify the Neo- 
logian in explaining away all the miracles of Christ? 
To rest the foundation of the inspiration of particular 
passages of Scripture, upon any other foundation, 
than that they are a part of Scripture, is in effect to 
overturn the inspiration of the whole Bible. 

I am glad, however, that Mr Wilson can perceive 
several important instructions in those passages of 
Scripture, which have been perfectly barren in the 
estimation of some other evangelical theologians, 
strutting in awkward dignity with the staff and 
gown of the philosopher, Yes, some of these ora- 
cles of orthodoxy, to whom the religious world are 
accustomed to look up as almost the mouth of hea- 



36 



Ten, have not been ashamed to avow the opinions 
that such passages as the above, are not the words 
of God. Such things as these are too unim- 
portant, too destitute of interest, too little of a re- 
ligious nature, to be the dictation of inspiration. 
Hence the theory that makes a distinction in the 
Scriptures between the things that belong to reli- 
gion, and the things of another nature. Wretched 
ingenuity! if thou must be employed, go to the 
schools of philosophy, where thou wilt find kindred 
madmen; leave the word of God in an unadulterated 
state to the christian. How daring, how diaboli- 
cally daring, to erect a standard to displace some 
parts of Scripture from the word of God? Who 
but God has a right to say, what is worthy of re- 
velation ? 

n^hv^iKu Mr Wilson, like many other divines, assigns to 
>Jr rtW^if '^ philosophy, a dignity and an authority on this sub- 
ufau ^^ L i ec t which I cannot recognise. In her own pro- 
, ^ J jj^j. x vmce, she is an instructor most interesting and use- 
Itlic ^tdkicP 1 ^ > ^ut on ^ e SUD j e °t °f revealed religion her pre- 
voutoC&AU t ii*rogatives are very limited. No philosophical doc- 
tjidu^tL uama~ trine, or discovery in philosophy, can be admit- 
buMUU- cu^(lfed as testimony with respect to the claims of a re- 
ye -4 ^ti|i]jgj on pretending to an establishment on miracles, 

^ but that which is either self - evident > oris legitimate- 

ly fo T«i deduced from self-evident principles.^ Such a 

L X aivLyuLd philosophy has a right to speak, and must be heard, 
I) tudttuM/ caiton all subjects. But little, indeed, of that which 
A^Uo\^utL\s called philosophy is of this description. Ro- 
WiJiL ^euu^ mances assuming the name of philosophy, have 
c^lc*Ud.ViWKjp k en ag umpires on the truth of the doctrines of 



37 



revelation ; and unwary christians, either not know- 
ing the limits of philosophical interference, or from 
an undue deference to the dignity of science, have 
tamely acquiesced in the assumed claims. As a 
matter of fact, no madmen have been so extrava- 
gant as pretended philosophers. The inmates of 
Bedlam are quite sane in comparison with the 
metaphysical lunatics, who, in the building of inge- 
nious systems, have trampled upon all the laws of 
evidence, and all the fundamental principles of the * $L ojW»t 
human mind. And if the geological maniacs, who ^t^i^u^d a\ 
have indicated their paroxysms in the effusion of sys- ^' tut 
terns of the formation of the earth^are at all to be u ^ H u 
paralleled, it is in the ingenious but frantic labours LHCt u 
of those divines, who have employed themselves in tf" 
theories about the manner of the formation of the ' 
word of God. 



u Ah ! foolish sage 

He could not trust the word of heaven, 

The light which from the Bible blazed — that lamp 

Which God threw from his palace down to earth, 

To guide his wandering children home— yet leaned 

His cautious faith on speculations wild, 

And visionary theories absurd, 

Compared with which the most erroneous flight 

That poet ever took when warmed with wine 

Was moderate conjecturing." 

POLLOK, 

The phases of philosophy have been as changeable 
as those of the moon ; yet, in every age, the pulpit has 
generally conformed to the reigning systems of sci- 
ence, and has been made the echo of the schools,, 



38 



Speculation assumes the place of axioms, and the 
Apostles of Jesus must bow to the successors of the 
Stagirite. 

Even the real discoveries of science are not 
founded on evidence that will warrant them to dic- 
tate to the sense of revelation, even on the points 
in which they relate to the same subject. I am 
convinced, that the glory of God has been much 
displayed by the glasses of the astronomers. But if 
Moses and the telescope were at issue, I would 
trample on the glasses of the philosophers. I have 
more evidence that the Scriptures are the word of 
God, than ever can be produced for the truth even 
of the Newtonian system. This, I say, not from 
any opinion of interference, for I am persuaded 
there is none. The Scriptures are not pledged for 
<V(yi-W or a gainst this system. But the usual way of 
a% luy Jia speaking on this subject, discovers too little respect 
hu dc cXft/t^ for the word of God, and too much deference to 
vuAlpwJ^faQ authority of philosophy. Mr Wilson does not 
o+l fcr 4 ^<j seem f ree f thig cnar2:e# " There is," says he, 
-(rKA/HLt> nothing in them (the Scriptures) inconsistent 
iytUuyLifoih 6 with ^e facts and discoveries of history and phi- 
h&crt*AfjU e losophy." Very true, and so much the better 
1j^u-',' for history and philosophy.t But is there any fact 
in history so well established as the history of 
Jesus? We would not be justified in condemning 
the Scriptures, though many things were found in 
history contrary to their accounts. Who has given 
to profane history the prerogative of credence, as 
often as it might differ from sacred history ? It is 
much better that there is no such difference ; but 



39 



it is not right to acknowledge even in theory, that 
in a contested matter, the preference is to be given 
to the word of man. If the king and his prime mi- 
nister make a contradictory assertion, I will believe 
his Majesty : Shall I then give less deference to my 
God? I shall never consent, that the Scriptures 
shall give the way in passing, to the arrogant sys- 
tems of human philosophy. 

There are, no doubt, errors on both sides. If 
some are willing to hold the Scripture from philo- 
sophy as their liege lord, others set too small a value 
on the testimony of that light which belongs to 
man by his constitution. Whatever is self-evident, 
ought to be accounted as a revelation from God; 
and consequently a revelation prior to that of the 
Scriptures. Any thing, therefore, that contradicts 
any of the fundamental principles of human nature, 
must be rejected, whatever its claims may be. A 
dogma at variance with any self-evident truth, can- 
not be contained in the Bible. The light of na- 
ture is a divine revelation, and no succeeding reve- 
lation can contradict it. 

My eighth observation is, that little as this theo- 
ry may profess to deduct from the full inspiration 
of Scripture ; though in some instances the author 
reduces the distinction to a mere shadow; yet if 
there is really any thing in Scripture which is hu- 
man in such a sense, that it is not also divine, the 
scheme as truly contradicts these passages of Scrip- 
ture which assert inspiration, as the most lax sys- 
tem on this subject. If man had a part to perform 
in such a sense, that in it God had no share, which 



40 



is the only sense in which the distinction is to the 
author's purpose, so far the Scriptures are not the 
inspired word of God. They are not wholly by 
inspiration, which as truly contradicts the assertion 
that "all Scripture is given by inspiration," as the 
doctrine that inspiration extends to a few general 
objects only. Why do we believe that the Scrip- 
tures are inspired ? Because they assert this. If 
then we are justified in making any exception from 
this, we are equally justified in making any number 
of exceptions. This theory then, though it makes a 
distinction which the author sometimes represents 
to be so fine, that it is difficult or impossible to per- 
ceive it, in reality subverts inspiration. 

My ninth observation is, that this theory is desti- 
tute of foundation, even according to the author's 
own explanations. He teaches, that though the 
writers of Scripture made use of their own know- 
ledge, their own information, &c. &c. yet, that in 
the use of those they were directed, or superintend- 
ed by God, so that the thing written may in his 
view, be said to be inspired. Now admitting this, 
for the sake of argument, why may not the human 
manner be equally directed, and superintended, and 
elevated ; so that it may also be said to be divine ? 
Is the manner more human than, according to the 
author, much of the matter? If then the human 
matter, may be called the word of God, because of 
God's direction or superintendency, why may not 
the human manner be called God's in a like sense ? 
May not the form be inspired in the sense of di- 
rection or superintendence, as well as the things 



41 



which are said to have this kind of inspiration ? If 
so, why is the manner said to be exclusively hu- 
man, more than much of the matter, which accord- 
ing to the author himself, is equally human? The 
author himself then has taken away the foundation 
from his own theory. 

My tenth observation is, that this theory has not 
the redeeming circumstance in it, that the most lax 
systems of inspiration possess, namely, an adapta- 
tion to answer objections. It does not remove a 
single difficulty, that is supposed to press on com- 
plete verbal inspiration. It cannot be of the small- 
est service in forming a harmony of the gospels. If 
all the matter of the Scriptures is God's, the hu- 
manity of the mere manner cannot reconcile the 
smallest seeming contradiction. Some theorists 
may plead, that their systems are demanded by the 
necessities of the case, but this theory sins without 
this temptation. Its advantages are merely in the fan- 
cy of its author. But the author's pretensions on 
this head, we shall afterwards have an opportunity 
of more fully examining. 

My eleventh observation is, that though there is 
a distinction between the matter and manner of abook, 
yet there is no distinction between the author of a 
book, and the author of the style, or manner of a book. 
He that is the author of a book, must be the author of 
the style of the book. Now God is said to be the au- 
thor of the Bible, not merely the author of the matter 
of the Bible. u All Scripture is given by inspiration 
1 of God." It is the Scripture then that is given 
by inspiration, and this word contains the manner 
as well as the matter ; the words as well as the 



42 



thoughts. A writing includes thought, words, 
style ; and as all the holy writings are expressly de- 
clared to be inspired, they must be inspired in thoughts, 
words, style.*" One man may suggest the thoughts 
contained in any composition, and another may ex- 
press them in his own manner ; but we never say, 
that one man is the author of a writing or compo- 
sition, and another the author of the style of the 
composition, for the word writing or composition 
includes the style. Were any piece of writing 
produced in a civil court, as the production of a 
certain person, how ridiculous would be an attempt 
to prove that another was the author of the style 
of it. It might indeed be written in the style of 
another, that is, in the same kind of style which 
another uses, but the author of the writing must be 
the author of the style. Just so with the Scrip- 
tures. They are written by the inspiration of 
God, but that inspiration has conformed itself to 
the variety of styles used by the writers of Scrip- 
ture. To say, that the Scriptures are the work of 
God, but their style the work of man, is the same 
thing as to contend that the expression God made 
man, admits the supposition, that the devil formed 
him. The word Scripture, as expressly includes 
style, as the word made includes formation. 

The same thing is evident from other designations 
of the Scripture. The phrase word of God, im- 
plies that the Scriptures are God's, in both matter 
and expression. The word Aoyej* denotes not on- 
ly a word, but a connection of words, expressing 
a thought, or a whole speech, oration, or treatise. 
* See Appendix. 



43 



It is very variously used, but whether it is employ- 
ed to denote a word, a sentence, or a speech, it al- 
ways includes style, Indeed it is distinguished by 
Demosthenes from Pjja**, signifying a single word. 
In his oration for the crown, he says of iEschines, 
<rvvute%wr Typccix xxi Xokov$, translated by Dr Le- 
land, his words and periods are prepared. If then V 
the whole Scriptures are called the word of God, ^ Ux jf uu ^ 
they must be his in words, as well as in matter, in ^ ^ ***** Cu 
style as well as in sentiment . * ' ;Uu ^ ^ 

The same thing; appears from the designation V \ J 
oracles of God. Among the heathens, the word , l ; Uuhu ^ 
oracle denoted the response given by the god, who M^v 
was consulted through his priest. This answer was ^ ^i 1 ^^- 
supposed to come from the god, both in matter and 
form. The priestess of Apollo at Delphi was in a 
phrenzy, whilst she uttered the words inspired by 
her god. In general, the heathen prophets were 
fitted for being channels of communicating the di- 
vine declarations by previous derangement. It was 
then undoubtedly understood, that the inspiring 
deity was the author of the words and style, as 
well as of the substance of the communication. The 
Scriptures then are said to be the oracles of God, 
and Stephen says, that Moses received the lively 
oracles. If so, he received the whole that he wrote. 
Indeed, Mr Wilson admits what refutes himself. 
" The prophetical parts," he says, " the doctrines 
6 of pure revelation, the historical facts beyond the 
* reach of human knowledge; all the great outlines 
' of Christianity, both as to matter, doctrine, and 

practice, were probably of the inspiration of sug- 



44 



' gestion, both as to the matter and the words/ 1 507. 
If so, the style in all such cases is God's, the man- 
ner as well as the matter. For if all the words are 
given by God, how can the style be abstracted from 
this ? Indeed, in prophecy not understood by the 
writer, the words and the collocation of the words, 

%m U tinXeuJ^^^ inspiration as much as the matter. The 
toiz^oJjLy Scriptures then, soul, body, and spirit, are the word 

^UiAM^n f God. 

uu^^^bo * ast 0Dservat i° n is, that Mr Wilson's system 

is crude and indigested, and fertile in contradictions 
above any other theory.* It does not hang together, 
but obliges him to harmonise its discordant parts by 
saying and unsaying, in the most extravagant man- 
ner. The theory essentially consists in supposing 
that in the making of the Scriptures, God is the 
author of one part, and man of another. The mat- 
ter being divine and the form human ; yet he fre- 
quently asserts that the whole is divine, and the 
whole human. Now the ingenuity of Satan could 
not reconcile this on Mr Wilson's plan. A thing 
may be both divine and human in different points of 
view, but in the same point of view this is impossi- 
ble. Now to say that the Scriptures are divine and 
human in different points of view, is nothing to Mr 
Wilson's purpose. In this sense, the matter may 
be said to be human as well as the form. The 
thoughts are as truly Paul's thoughts in his Epis- 
tles, as the language and style are Paul's. In a like 
sense also, the manner, though human, is likewise 
divine. God speaks through Paul in Paul's man- 
ner. But Mr Wilson's theory makes the matter 



45 



solely God's, and the manner or form solely man's. 
If so, every thing is not divine, every thing is not ^ 
human ; but the Scriptures are partly human and N ^ 
partly divine. Mr Wilson then palpably contradicts ^ 
himself, when he says, that every thing is divine, " 
for according to him the manner of Scripture is not ^ 
divine ; and when he says that every thing is hu- s 
man, for according to his distinction, the matter can ^ 
in no sense be human. 5 

Of the writers of Scripture, he says, " They 
' plead with those to whom they are sent, they ad- ^ 
* dress the heart, they expostulate, they reason, | 
6 they invite. " Now this is a portion of the phe- : 
nomena that belongs to man. But his theory re- 



quires that nothing belongs to man but the manner. 4 
Is there no matter then in the Scripture pleadings, ^ 
addresses to the heart, expostulations, warnings, in- « 
vitations ? Are these all shadows without substance ? f jh 
Does not this admit that there is a sense in which ^ * 
the matter is man's as well as the manner? An ^ 
apostle writes his own thoughts as well as in his own ^ 
style ; that is, God speaks through the thoughts and 
style of the apostle. | ^ 

The facts of the case, he says, imply, " simply I 
' that God was pleased to use man as his instru- ^1 
' ment," 502. This is perfectly correct, but ^ ^ 
perfectly contradictory to the authors theory. Ac- 
cording to it, God does not make use of the in- 
strumentality of man, but leaves a part of his work * j 
to the distinct agency of man, in which man acts < 
as independently o f God t as in his own part God 3 ^ 
acts independently of man .* 7 ^" If in the manner or ^ jj 

xJIucJt-Ll t\x-Lc itvy 3 , i<sd^ LiJXU. vt,c<.<+. atctultt4| MJ[ WlA*au>d 

. J Itfku. W*mj\ ±itc<~ 'iw-^.w- oJ^, MA W S u^><vV thzu^ \t tcovt. yuv£cd-* May eWt*. 



46 



form of revelation, man is only the rational instru- 
ment through whom God acts, then the theory of 
Mr Wilson is destroyed. Accordingly, though the 
author speaks thus in repelling objections, and en- 
deavours to hide the hideousness of the system that 
would rob God of any part of his own word, yet 
he speaks another language when he exhibits his 
system. Instead of using the writers of Scripture 
as instruments, God, according to the author, 
" thought it right to leave them to the operations 
€ of their own minds, and the dictates of their own 
' knowledge, habits, and feelings, as to the man- 
' ner of communicating his will," 501. In like 
manner, he quotes Warburton, who asserts " that 
* the Divine superintendence was with so sus- 
' fended a hand as permitted the use, and left 
' them to the guidance of their own faculties, while 
6 they kept clear of error." Here there is no in- 
strumentality. The nurse watches the child step- 
ping across the floor, and as long as it does not 
stumble, puts not a hand to the little adventurer. 
In such cases then, not only the manner but the 
matter also is no more God's, than the child's 
walking is the nurse's walking. It is then absurd 
and contradictory for Mr Wilson to assert distinct 
and independent provinces to God and man in the 
compositions of thebibie, yet when it suits his view 
to speak of mere instrumentality on the part of 
man. 

In another place, speaking of the Books of 
Scripture, he says, " They are the words of the 
Holy Ghost." This is all I ask, and less I will 



47 

not take. But how has the author the hardihood^ \ 
to make such an assertion, according to his views ? it n cUiVUt&u^ 
Does he believe that all the words of all parts of fLM-iuee^oiw 
Scripture are the words of the Holy Spirit ? HislWy 
language can have no lower import. Yet, does he vv rkvu r 
not himself expressly distinguish between certain ^ , 

things that needed suggestion, and certain other 
things that needed lessj Somethings needed only^ _ 
the eye of the nurse. I ask Mr Wilson also, if all/^^^ w 
the words of Scripture are the words of the Holy ^ y ^ . } Uc 
Ghost, how it is that the style or manner of the L " < jf k ^ J u 
Scripture is not the work of the Holy Ghost. ^ 1 ' 
The author likewise speaks of " the wonderful ^qL^jI " t ; v 

• union of Divine and human agency in the inspi- i^fo bu 

* ration of the Scriptures." Is human agency a 
component integral part of inspiration? This makes lu 
man the author of a part in the composition of the ^ 

bible, as distinct from God; yet it absurdly makes ^ Clu ^ Jb ^j0 
that part that belongs to man only a part of inspi- ^i v ^,^ 
ration. 1 his is a crude theory Mr Wilson. A u>--» A / ^ 
very slight cross-examination makes the witness re-<^'S\^\' u - 
fute himself. x\gain, in one place he says: " The ^ 
' Books are given by Divine inspiration," 499 ; ; >. :u u . t iM ^, 
in another, he says, "Where nature ended and-* 
' inspiration began, it is not for man to say," 506.^^^, 
In the first, all is asserted to be inspiration ; in the fuA?.! 
second, it is taken for granted, that part is inspira-juu U a m 
tion, and part the vrork of man, though it is ina-^ j 
possible to assign the boundary. If the Scriptures^/ ic A v * V 
contained such contradictions, it would be impossible u^y./'. t v 
to defend their inspiration. c ^\ ^ cs ~ 



48 



Let us now take a glance of the author's view of 
the advantages of his theory. " By this condescen- 
' sion of God/' says he, " in his manner of inspir- 
e ing the Scriptures, truth is made more intelligible 
4 to the mass of mankind, than if the human facul- 
' ties had been altogether suspended, and the feelings 

* of common life extinguished or overborne. " 5 J 4. 
Ts it peculiar to our author's system to view the fa- 
culties of the writers of Scripture as active f Does 
any system deny it ? I can admit this, and I do 
admit it, as fully as the author, while T contend that 
God speaks through the activity of the human fa- 
culties. I go farther than the author's distinction 
can consistently allow him. I can speak of Paul's 
thoughts, reasonings, arguments, &c. as well as of 
Paul's style. Why then does Mr Wilson make such a 
claim for his theory, when the advantage he would 
appropriate to it, is common to all? But in reality, 
it is an advantage that exists merely in Mr Wilson's 
fancy. The Scriptures might have been equally in- 
telligible, and had it pleased God much more so, had 
the Scriptures been written by man through an inspi- 
ration that actually suspended all the rational facul- 
ties—nay, though they had been uttered by a sta- 
tue, or written by a machine. Nothing can be 
more unfounded than the train of consequences 
which the author draws from the supposition of the 
Scriptures being written by an inspiration which 
should have suspended all the operations of the 
writer's mind. This, he says, " Must have spread 
< an uniformity and sameness over the whole surface 

* of the Scriptures.'* Why so, Mr Wilson ? It 



49 



is equally easy to assert, and equally easy to prove, 
that there is no mast in the case. Could not the 
same Almighty author have given the very same 
manner, with every variety of style, though man had 
been as unconscious as a block of marble, when he 
wrote them ? " Must have expunged," continues 
our author, " all the varieties of style, diversities 
' of narrative, and selection of topics — must have im- 
' pressed one and the same phraseology, and turn 
c of expression upon all the sacred books in the 
i same language." 519. There is not a must in 
any one of these particulars. Had God declined 
the instrumentality of man altogether in the writing 
of the Scriptures, would he not still have written 
in the language and style of man ? Such writers 
as Mr Wilson, seem strangely to take it for granted, 
that if God had communicated the Scriptures with- 
out man, he would not have used the language of 
man. In their odd suppositions, they sometimes 
speak of the language of angels, as if that would be 
a revelation toman. I suppose the Ten Command- 
ments are as intelligible as any part of the Scriptures, 
yet they were written by the finger of God, without 
any instrumentality of man. This then puts it be- 
yond speculation, what the Scriptures would have 
been, even had there been no human instrument- 
ality in them. This fact should have guarded Mr 
Wilson from indulging in such a train of romantic 
speculation. 

The second advantage of inspiration as explain- 
ed by this theory is, " The interpretation of Scripture 
i is rendered more ea^y, as well as more safe." 

D 



50 



Now this is an advantage which I cannot at all ad- 
mit. On the contrary, there can be no doubt but 
without any human instrumentality, God might 
have rendered the Scriptures much more easily in- 
terpreted, and have freed them from all those ap- 
parent contradictions, and all those real difficulties 
and obscurities which it is generally acknowledged 
that they contain. The Scriptures have exactly 
that degree of clearness which the divine wisdom 
saw fit, and this he could have given them in what- 
ever way he might have chosen to convey them. 
Let us, however, take a look at the reasons by 
which the author supports his position. "It de- 
pends not," he says, " on the turn of any one 
6 particular phrase, or the force of some few words, 
' but springs from the general import of language 
4 familiar to us all." And had God given the 
Scriptures without human instrumentality, would 
it have been otherwise? Would more, in that issue, 
have depended on the turn of one particular phrase, 
or the force of s.ome few words? Would less at- 
tention have been paid to the general import of lan- 
guage, or would the speech of heaven have been 
employed ? Why does the author speak of language 
familiar to us all? As every nation has not the 
words of inspiration, he must mean human language, 
as distinguished from language not human. There 
seems to be a strange confusion in the author's mind 
on this subject. He seems to think that if the 
Scriptures had not been written through the instru- 
mentality of man, they would not have been writ- 
ten in human language. Does he think that the 



51 



Scriptures would be a revelation at all, if they were 
not written in human language ? Whether they 
might have been written by the finger of God, or 
by angels, they must equally have been written in 
the language of man. Has the author forgotten 
the Ten Commandments, and the various messages 
delivered to men by angels ? What occasion had he 
to go to heaven for a language, as an alternative of 
the mode of communicating revelation? VYhat rea- 
son had he to think that the language of God with* 
out a medium, or through the medium of angels, 
would have shunned the same mode of interpreta- 
tion with the language of man ? 

" The Bible/' he says, " is to be studied, its 
i various parts compared, its metaphors illustrated, 
< its poetical and historical allusions unfolded, all 
' its declarations received, according to the well- 
' known rules of human writing.'' And would not 
the Bible be studied, though God had written it 
by the instrumentality of angels, or without instru- 
mentality altogether ? Does the author never study 
the Ten Commandments ? Why might not the 
various parts of the Bible have been compared on 
any mode of inspiration ? Is there any difference 
in the illustration of a metaphor, whether it has 
been pronounced by God immediately, or by man 
as God's rational organ ? Would it be profane to 
exhibit the meaning and beauty of a metaphor as 
coming from God without a medium, yet lawful 
to make free with it coming through the medium 
of man ? Perhaps this is the true reason why di- 
vines so earnestly labour to give God as little share 



52 



in the Scriptures as possible, and why they are so 
very bold in their manner of interpreting the word 
of God. They seem to think that the Bible is 
God's word, in a like sense as the speech delivered 
to parliament from the throne, is the king's speech ; 
- c *V : and treat it with similar rudeness and freedom. 
!viU^v ^ Does Mr Wilson know of any view of inspiration 
-au\, . uJ^i- that prevents the unfolding of poetical and histori- 
uaaaMa mIU . cal allusions? Have not such allusions equal need 
of being unfolded on all modes of inspiration ? 
Must not the declarations of the Bible be received, 
according to the well known rules of human writ- 
ing, in whatever mode it has been inspired ? Does 
the author really think that the Ten Command- 
ments, and every other communication immedi- 
ately from God, are not to be received according 
to the w T ell-known rules of human writing? It is 
a wild and extravagant conceit, that the communi- 
cations of God delivered immediately by himself to 
man, cannot be in the language of man ; or, if in 
the language of man, cannot have their meaning 
ascertained by the known laws of human language. 
Should God speak to me from the throne of hea- 
ven. I would ascertain his meaning by the laws of 
human language, as well as when he speaks to me 
by Peter and Paul, Luke and John. 

While the author provides work for the critic by 
his mode of inspiration, the unlearned Christian is 
kept in good humour by putting him on a level with 
the greatest scholars, with respect to knowledge of 
the great doctrines of Christianity. u The most 
* unlearned Christian," says he, tS stands upon 



53 



* the same ground, as to all the commanding truths 

* of revelation, with the greatest scholars ; whilst 

* the utmost diligence of the scholar will find em- 
■ ployment in the adaptation of his acquisitions to 

* the illustration of the more difficult parts of the 
' inspired volume." Now this is a compliment to 
the want of learning in which I cannot coincide. It 
is mere fanaticism. Indeed God often reveals him- 
self to babes, while he hides himself from the 'wise 
and prudent ; and many unlearned men have a 
much deeper and more correct knowledge of divine 
truth, than many learned Christians. Still I con- 
tend, that learning is of equal importance with re- 
spect to the exhibition, proof, and illustration of 
the commanding truths of revelation, as it is in that 
province which Mr Wilson exclusively assigns to it. 
There is no subject in revelation in which it is not 
profitable. There is no greater bar to progress in 
the knowledge of God, than the supposition that 
all who believe in Jesus Christ are equally ac- 
quainted with the Gospel. If all parts of Scripture 
deserve to be studied, this does so above all. And 
nothing will so well repay study. What a wonder- 
ful difference as to degrees of knowledge, between 
the simpleton saved by faith, and the Christian 
who, from his long and deep acquaintance with the 
Gospel, views it as a self-evident truth ; having in 
itself its own evidence as much as the divine exist- 
ence itself ! Learning can in nothing be so well 
employed as on the great truths of the Gospel. 
There is indeed no room for speculation or theory, 
improvement or alteration ; but all the learning in 



54 



the universe might be employed in exhibiting the 
inexhaustible treasures of truth. 

The third advantage which the author finds in 
his system of inspiration is, that " By this plan, the 
' trifling inaccuracies which have insinuated them- 
■ selves into the copies of the Scriptures, by the 

* carelessness of transcribers, the various readings 
' which have accumulated during eighteen centu- 
' ries, and the further defects arising from transla- 
' tions, or from our ignorance of a few particular 
6 allusions, are of less moment." Now, I cannot 
divine in what way these defects can be either in- 
creased or diminished by any mode of inspiration. 
I know indeed that the mode of treating divine 
truth employed by the Scriptures, interspersing the 
same doctrine in innumerable places, certainly does 
lessen the evil of various readings. But [ know 
equally well that this does not belong to the sub- 
ject of the mode of inspiration, and that this advan- 
tage might have been effected, had the Scriptures 
been written every word by the finger of God. If 
the author has an eye to this, he very unphiloso- 
phically confounds things as distinct as things can be. 
But let us hear himself in the illustration ot this ad- 
vantage. " They do not materially impair the force 

* of the divine books, because those books are writ- 
' ten by men like ourselves." Would the above 
defects have more materially impaired the force of 
the dime books, had they been written by angels, 
or by the finger of God ? Would a various reading, 
or an imperfect translation, have a worse effect upon 
the Ten Commandments written by the finger of 



55 



God, or upon the Letters to the Seven Churches of 
Asia, delivered by the Lord Jesus Christ, than upon 
any of the Letters of Paul? In whatever way the 
Scriptures may be supposed to be inspired, the loss 
to the reader from the above defects is perfectly the 
same. Can any man, of sobriety of mind, suppose 
that if God had written every letter of the Scrip- 
tures without instrumentality, he was more interest- 
ed to preserve the Sacred Volume from the errors 
of transcribers, than he is on the plan employed by 
him ? Yet our author asserts it as an axiom, that 
if the Scriptures had been given by an inspiration 
which should have suspended all the operations of 
the writer's mind ; it " must have required the per- 
' fectly pure preservation of all the copies in all 
1 ages from the errors of transcribers, — must have 
' rendered various readings and imperfect transla- 
' tions of fundamental injury." These assertions 
seem to be so entirely without even plausibility, 
that I am at a loss to conceive how they can have 
influence on any intellect. On the contrary, it ap- 
pears to me an axiom, that the same various read- 
ings and imperfect translations will equally injure 
the book, whatever be the mode of inspiration. 
Would an imperfect translation, or a various read- 
ng, do more injury to the Ten Commandments, 
than to the Third Epistle of John ? Rut by what 
sort of juggling is it, that the author contrives to 
preserve the books considered as divine, when they 
are injured as human ? If a word is lost, is no mat- 
ter lost? Does he not say, that the matter is all 
divine? Words then that may be lost certainly 



56 



must contain no matter. The loss of words is on- 
ly the loss of manner ! How fond our author is of 
mysteries and paradoxes ! The force of the divine 
books is not impaired by any casualty, because these 
divine books were written by men ! Then, it seems, 
if all the Scriptures w T hich have been written by 
men had been lost, all that is divine in them would 
still remain ! Is not this a sort of spiritual legerde- 
main ? 

In the continuation of his illustration of this ad- 
vantage, the author observes, " The truths are not 
' conveyed dryly and systematically, but clothed 

with human feelings," &c. Had God written all 
the Bible with his own finger, must it have been a 
dry systematic work ? Surely this has no relation 
to the subject of inspiration. It is a peculiarity and 
an advantage belonging to the plan of revelation, 
but with the subject of the mode of inspiration it 
has no more concern than it has with the genealogy 
of Melchisedec. 

The fourth advantage which the author ascribes 
to his view of this subject, is, that the sacred books 
on this plan become capable of supplying proofs of 
authenticity. This is a sound observation. Had 
the Scriptures been written, either by God imme- 
diately, or through angels, we would have wanted 
those proofs of authenticity, that result from the 
characteristic style of each of the inspired writers. 
But the views of those who consider the various 
styles as also the work of God, as well as of man, 
possesses this advantage equally. When Sir Wai- 
ter Scott writes in the style of any of his fictitiou s 



57 



characters, it is still the style of Sir Walter. The 
same may be said of other internal evidences, to 
which Mr Wilson's fifth advantage refers. 

His sixth advantage also is real, and the illus- 
tration of it quite satisfactory. It will be of great 
advantage to read the Scriptures with this observa- 
tion constantly in view, for it is exemplified in in- 
numerable particulars. The Scriptures, he ob- 
serves, are thus more adapted to be a moral proba- 
tion of the heart. It might not be unprofitable to 
the author, to consider whether his observations 
may not apply to his own theory. The traces of 
the characteristic style of the fishermen of Galilee, 
may afford an occasion to worldly wisdom to invent 
a theory, founded on an arbitrary distinction, in- 
stead of submitting, like a little child, to believe 
the testimony of God on this question, asserting 
that " All Scripture is given by the inspiration of 
God/' Surely there is nothing in Scripture which 
asserts, that the manner of Scripture is not as truly 
divine as the matter. 

I am glad to find, that the author, in the first of 
his practical reflections, so decidedly condemns that 
wicked theory that some have lately brought for- 
ward, that daringly ventures to divest of inspiration 
some things in Scripture, as too trifling, and of too 
worldly a nature to deserve that honour. Such ar- 
rogance, assuming to sit in judgment on the word 
of Jehovah, instead of seeking instruction from 
every part of it, cannot be too severely reprobated. 
" The moment man dares to consider any part of 
( Scripture as uninspired," says Mr Wilson, " he 



58 



f sets up his own prejudices as the rule of judg- 
ment; he believes only what he likes; and he 
6 commonly ends in undervaluing or rejecting some 
' of the fundamental truths of the gospel." I 
would have had much greater pleasure in reviewing 
Mr Wilson's work, had he written the whole in a 
strain worthy of this observation. 

The author's second reflection is, that his theory 
" tends to close the avenues to some of the most 
e pernicious evils which have desolated the church." 
He divides these errors into two classes; the first 
takes too low a view of inspiration, and the second, 
too high a view. The usurpation over conscience, 
the authority of tradition, infallibility, the prohibi- 
tion of the free use of the Bible to the laity, the 
exclusive imposition of a particular translation, and 
the intermixture of Apocryphal with Canonical 
writings, are all ascribed to the first. Now there 
can be no doubt, that the abettors of these errors 
have little practical regard to the inspiration of the 
Scriptures ; but there can be as little doubt, that 
they do not arise from a denial of plenary inspira- 
tion. On the contrary, the Church of Rome will 
admit the inspiration of the Scriptures more fully 
than Mr Wilson himself. It will ascribe them to 
God, both in matter and manner. It admits the 
Apocrypha, not because it makes light of the inspi- 
ration of the genuine books of Scripture, but be- 
cause it believes the Apocrypha to be inspired. It 
imposes an exclusive translation ; not because it 
believes the original to be uninspired, or inspired in 
a low degree, but because it believes the Vulgate 



59 



to be an inspired translation. I wish Mr Wilson 
was engaged in actual combat with any Roman Ca- 
tholic writer. He would soon be convinced, that 
he was here writing at random. There is no more 
reason to ascribe Popish errors to imperfect views 
of inspiration, than there is to ascribe all error to 
this source. 

But it is more to my purpose to attend to the 
errors supposed to result from an overstrained view 
of inspiration. "On the other hand," says Mr 
Wilson, " the class of errors, not generally so fa- 
' tal, but yet most injurious, which spring from a 
* forge tfulness of the human character, and form of 
' the plan of inspiration, is to be guarded against" 
Now, reader, put your invention on duty, and try 
to find out a number of such errors — errors whose 
origin is the overlooking of the manner of inspira- 
tion. u If the inspiration of Scripture," says the 
author, " be so interpreted as to supersede the 
( free and natural flow of the writer's mind." Is 
there any one wbo holds this? and if there is, does 
it lead to the supposed consequence? Cannot God 
convey his thoughts and his words, through the na- 
tural flow of the thoughts and words of him 
through whom he speaks? *■ If sound and rea- 
' sonable means of expounding the force of terms," 
says he, " the import of metaphors, the significa- 
■ tion of allusions to local customs be discarded." 
Do anv of those who have the highest views of in- 
spiration, discard sound and reasonable means of 
expounding the force of terms, the import of me- 
taphors, &c. ? Or has their view any tendency to 



60 



€Ountenance such extravagancies £ Mr Wilson 
might as plausibly trace such evils to overstrained 
corollaries from the 47th proposition of the first 
book of Euclid's Elements. Why, Mr Wilson, do 
you talk so much at random ? This loose reason- 
ing has no more connection with the principles on 
which it is professedly founded, than it has with 
theories of the formation of the earth. " If the 
' book," continues Mr Wilson, "is considered as 
* so divine in its form, as well as its matter, as to 
' exclude man's agency." Did any man ever hold 
this ? Did ever Mr Wilson hear of any one who 
denied the agency of man in writing the Bible ? 
Especially do they on whom he has his eye, deny 
the employment of man as a rational organ in the 
writing of the Scriptures ? They believe indeed, 
that the Bible is as divine in its form, as in its mat- 
ter, and as human in its matter, as in its form. But 
both as to matter and form, man was a rational or- 
gan in producing it. tc If the human character of 
' the manner," says he, " is forgotten — the errors 
' which may arise, are by no means inconsiderable." 
Who can forget that the Scriptures are written in 
the form of human writings ? This may be re- 
membered, while at the same time, it is believed 
that they have received this human form from God. 
But that we may not fight in the dark, let us see 
what those errors are. " Truth is conveyed off, as 
( it were, into the lifeless reservoirs of human con- 
6 trivance, instead of flowing fresh from the living 
e sources of the divine mind." Now a Scripture 
metaphor I could expound, but here is one that 



61 



discards the efforts of criticism. I can attach no 
more meaning to it, than if it were written in Chi- 
nese. Let us then examine the next supposed er- 
ror. " Harsh and unnatural interpretations are 
' imposed ; arguments are violated, or misstated ; 
' figures and parables are pushed into minute and 
6 far fetched novelties." How do any of these 
evils result from the belief that God is the author of 
the Scriptures, both as to manner and matter? 
Does the author really think, that it would be law- 
ful to impose harsh and unnatural interpretations, 
violate or misstate arguments, push figures and pa- 
rables into minute and far fetched novelties, on the 
supposition that God had written the Scriptures 
with his own ringer? Is there any difference as to 
the interpretation of a parable or any figure, whether 
it had been written by God or by man ? The author 
seems constantly to labour under the strange im- 
pression, that if God should speak without human 
instrumentality, he would not speak in language to 
be expounded by the ordinary laws of speech. 
" Systems of theology/' he continues, " are fram- 
f ed according to the taste and habits of the stu- 
* dent, and not after the native simplicity of the 
■ divine word/' Many systems of theology, it is 
true, are of this stamp, but it is not the result of 
too high views of inspiration. Strange indeed, that 
a writer takes up his pen, with the conviction that 
the Scriptures are so eminently inspired, and that 
this very conviction leads him to form his system 
in utter disregard of these Scriptures ! " A few 
' passages are taken out of their connexion, and 



62 



* forced to an unnatural sense, and then the Scrip- 
' tures compelled to bend to that exposition." 
Very bad indeed, but overstrained views of inspi- 
ration are surely the last thing in which a source 
should be sought for such an evil. " The various 

* statements and arguments of the Holy Scrip- 
6 tures, instead of being diligently examined and 
- compared, as so many phenomena, from which 
( inferences are to be drawn with the care of the 
' inductive philosophy — are harshly put together, 
' reduced to a few rigid and unbending proposi- 
' tions, and are made the first principles of all sub- 
' sequent advances. By these means, the doc- 
' trine of the inspiration is overstrained, and mis- 

* applied." How is it possible that any reasoning 
mind could connect such errors with the opinion on 
which Mr W. supposes them to be founded? This 
surely is a noble instance of the inductive philoso- 
phy. The wildest enthusiasm in all its phrenzy, 
never uttered any thing more extravagant than 
this. A series of errors are ascribed to an origin 
with no more semblance of truth, than if they were 
deduced from wrong views of the solar system. 
Though a person should be so frantic as to believe 
that the writers of the Scriptures were unconscious 
organs, as devoid of understanding at the moment, 
as Balaam's ass, his opinion would have no tend- 
ency to lead toaoy of the above errors. It is mere 
raving then to trace them to such a source. No 
man can be more destitute of a philosophic mind, 
than this writer. 



63 



" The human part is forgotten, Men pass over 
' and obliterate ail the finer traits, all the hidden 
c and gentle whispers of truth, all the less obvious, 
' and yet natural and affecting impressions of char- 
£ acter." Here again the writer gets into mystery. 
What are these finer traits, that are passed over 
and obliterated ? How are they obliterated, if 
they are passed over? What are hidden whispers 
of truth ? Who can hide a whisper? If it is 
hidden, how is it obliterated? Do not the gentle 
whispers of truth belong to the matter of Scrip- 
ture? Are they manner merely; form without 
substance ? What in plain English is the meaning 
of this sentence ? Does the author really think 
that any one reads the Epistles of Paul, or Peter, 
James, or John, without knowing that man is 
speaking as well as God? Does he think that it 
is possible to overlook the human agency, while he 
is addressed by a writer expressly under his own 
name? Whatever probability there may be that 
some will forget that God speaks through man, 
there is none that they will forget that man speaks 
when he writes expressly with his own signature. 
The agency of man is not a fine trait, not a gentle 
whisper, not a less obvious impression; but the 
most prominent feature in revelation. He must 
be blind indeed, who does not see the Apostle Paul 
in his writings. Has ever the author met any 
species of two-legged animals, who are guilt v of the 
errors which he here exposes? Yet the author 
speaks as if there was a very numerous class of 
this description. If it were the theme of a school- 



64 



boy torturing his barren brains to fill up a page or 
two, such a creation of fancied evils might find 
some apology. Eut on so grave a subject, it is ut- 
terly without excuse. There cannot exist an in- 
dividual, who in reading the Scriptures, overlooks 
the agency of man. Is it then consistent with in- 
tegrity, to create a class of fanatics so extravagant- 
ly frantic, for the mere purpose of disgracing a dis- 
agreeable sentiment ? 

And what connexion has the quotation from 
Lord Bacon with this subject? As much as it 
has with the theory of the tides. Lord Bacon pre- 
fers short, sound, judicious notes and observations 
on Scripture, to those commentaries that abound 
in common places, pursue controversies, and are re- 
duced to artificial method. Well, what has this to 
say on the subject of inspiration ? His Lordship 
illustrates his meaning by a figure. The wine that 
ii'ows from the first treading of the grape, is sweeter 
and better than that forced out by the press. What- 
ever propriety of application this beautiful figure 
has to the subject, which it is brought to illustrate, 
it can have no application to Mr Wilson's purpose. 
Certainly it was not from a gentle crush of the 
Scriptures, that the author's theory of inspiration 
Hewed. All the power of the press could not force 
it out of the words, " All Scripture is given by the 
' inspiration of God," nor from any other words in 
the Bible. It is not merely the roughness of the 
husk and the stone that we find in this wine : We 
complain, that it is a wretched beverage produced 
by pouring water on the lees. 



65 



REMARKS ON THE REVIEW 



REV. DANIEL WILSON S THEORY OF INSPIRATION. 



Christian Observer of October 1829. 



It is fortunate for Mr Wilson, that all reviewers are 
not of ray way of thinking on these matters. Some 
of them, will, no doubt, consider him as carrying 
his ideas of inspiration much too far. Even some 
who have professed evangelical sentiments have 
made rauch greater havoc on the Scriptures. The 
most rigidly orthodox reviewers, it seems, are quite 
satisfied with his views. The evangelical press of 
England, I have no doubt, will be on his side. 
The Christian Observer appears to consider itself 
as very scrupulous on the subject, yet it professes 
a substantial concurrence in his doctrine. It will 
be but justice then to Mr Wilson to exhibit the 
judgment of this Review, by the side of my remarks. 
I have no wish to conceal any thing that may be 
E 



66 



supposed to throw light upon a point which I deem 
so vitally important. 

The Christian Observer's account of Mr Wilson's 
theory, is contained in the following extract. " The 
e - next Lecture introduces us to a subject of much 
6 difficulty; namely, the plenary inspiration of the 
6 Scriptures, leaving no defect or error in the re- 
' ligious revelation; and the human form, the mould, 
s the peculiar character, the natural methods of ex- 
6 pression ; the poetry, the history, the devotion, — 
' in short, the whole apparatus of earthly instru- 
6 mentality, all impressed with the stamp of man, 
4 all intelligible to man, all to be interpreted by the 
6 laws of ordinary sense, and constantly applied by 
6 grammatical, logical and historical rules. Mr 
4 Wilson considers the matter all divine — the man- 
4 ner all human ; that is, with a constant preserva- 
e tion from all error affecting the revelation. He 
4 views the Bible as God speaking to man, not by 
4 angels, nor in the language, nor with the ideas, 
6 associations, and style of angels, if angels have 
i such characteristics — but by man, in the language 
4 of man, and with the ideas, associations, and 
' style of man." 

Though the first sentence is not remarkable for 
its clearness and precision, this extract will shew 
that I have not misrepresented Mr Wilson's mean- 
ing. My view of it is substantially the same with 
that given here. The Scriptures are impressed with 
the stamp of man, that is, they are written as if 
each of the writers were communicating his own 
thoughts. Did any man ever doubt this ? Is this 



67 



a discovery? Was there ever a reader of the 
Scriptures who was so ignorant as not to know 
this ? But have not the thoughts, reasoning, and 
arguments the same impression? Could not God 
as easily use the respective style of the writers of 
revelation, as he has used their thoughts, reason- 
ing, and arguments? Has he not communicated 
his truth and will to us, through the thoughts, rea- 
soning, and arguments of the inspired writers, - as 
well as through their style? The Epistle to the 
Romans, or to the Galatians, &c. is as much Paul's 
matter, as Paul's manner. Both are his in one 
sense ; both are God's in another. The style is the 
style of Paul, but could not God use that style 
when he wrote by Paul ? The thoughts also are 
Paul's thoughts; but could not God convey his . , 
mind in the way of Paul's thinking and reasoning ? ^ ^-Vf* 
If these gentlemen possessed a little philosophical^ ^ Uj > 
perspicacity, they would perceive that there is no \^^J^\^ 
difference in this matter, between the thoughts and J : . , ^ 
the style; both equally possessing the marks of the i^jt^^. 
mind of man. There is no more reason from this 
human impression, to conclude that the manner was 
without God as to the style, than as to the mat- 
ter. 

But not only has every thing in Scripture, ac- 
cording to these writers, the stamp of man, but 
what must be equally surprising, " all is intelligi- 
6 ble to man." Now is this a peculiarity in the 
manner of inspiration? What childish trifling? 
Must not revelation have been intelligible to man 
in whatever way inspired ? In whatever way com* 



68 



municated ? Had God given it by angels, would 
it not have been intelligible ? Had he given it im- 
mediately from his own hand, would it not have 
been intelligible ? What peculiar darkness is in 
the messages delivered by angels ? Have these 
gentlemen ever read the Ten Commandments ? Is 
not the language of the tables of the law suffi- 
ciently perspicuous ? 

But not only are all things intelligible to man, 
it is added, " all to be interpreted by the laws of 
ordinary sense, and constantly applied by gramma- 
tical, logical, and rhetorical rules." And if God 
had written the Scriptures himself, or given them 
through man as an unconscious instrument, would 
not this have been equally the case ? Must not 
every thing written in any language necessarily be 
understood in the sense of that language ? To 
say that God might have written his word in hu- 
man language, and that its meaning was not to 
be judged by the ordinary rules of that language, is 
a contradiction in terms. For if it is not to be un- 
derstood in the sense of the language, it is not in 
the language. The fact that revelation is written 
in the peculiar style of each of the inspired writers, 
is a peculiarity in inspiration worthy of being no- 
ticed ; and from it doubtless we may derive in- 
struction ; but that it is written in our language, 
and to be understood in the sense of the language 
in which it is written, and that it is intelligible to 
men, are no peculiarities. To mention such things 
as a distinguishing part of inspiration is the most 
silly trifling. The same may be said with respect 



69 



to the alternative of speaking by angels. " He 
' views the Bible/' says the reviewer, " as God 
' speaking to man, not by angels/'* &c. And did 
ever any one take a different view of this matter ? 
Was it ever thought that the Bible was written by 
angels in the language of angels ? A most import- 
ant discovery surely, that the Bible was not writ- 
ten in the language of angels ! By angels it might 
have been written, or by the finger of God m ; but 
whether by the one or by the other, it must have been 
written in the language of those to whom it was 
designed to be a revelation. The language of an- 
gels then, it is absurd to mention as an alternative. 
What Cimmerian darkness is it then that clouds 
the minds of these writers, that as often as they 
make the supposition that God or angels had writ- 
ten a revelation for man, they think it might have 
been written in the language of heaven ! A book 
written in the language of angels, it is absurd to 
speak of as a revelation to man. 

Let the reader observe in this extract the limita- 
tion even to divine superintendence in the writing 
of the Scriptures — " with a constant preservation 
*' from all error affecting the revelation.'* 1 no- 
ticed the same thing in Mr Wilson as this reviewer 
has done. According to this the writers of Scrip- 
ture were not preserved from all error, but only 
from such error as should affect the revelation. 
This, however, seems inconsistent with many of 
Mr Wilson's assertions. 

The reviewers next inform us : " We have of- 
' ten thought long and anxiously on this much 



70 



* controverted question ; nor are we wholly igno- 
6 rant of what the most celebrated biblical writers 
' and theologians have written upon it, or of the 
' difficulties which may be supposed to attach 
6 themselves to whatever conclusions we may 
' adopt." If these gentlemen would consult the 
Scriptures with the teachableness of little child- 
ren^ they might sooner come to their purpose, than 
either by abstract thinking on the question as a 
subject of controversy, or by poring over the vo- 
lumes of biblical writers. The last is an aid not 
to be despised ; but I am convinced that an impli- 
cit reliance on it, to the neglect of the first, is the 
cause of much of the very great ignorance of the 
learned with respect to this subject. As long as 
men attempt to surmount all difficulties by un- 
taught distinctions in inspiration, and by theories 
founded merely on supposition, instead of submit- 
ting to the testimony of God, that " all Scripture 
' is given by inspiration of God," it may be ex- 
pected that, like the sorcerer who opposed Paul, 
they will seek one to lead them at noon-day. That 
there are difficulties connected with inspiration, I 
do not deny ; for I do not know any truth or duty 
revealed in Scripture that has not its difficulties. 
But this I know, that the authors of the late theo- 
ries have not in the smallest degree contributed to 
remove these difficulties. The greatest of these 
difficulties remain, even were any of these theories 
admitted. The greatest difficulties that have ever 
occurred to me do not at all respect the complete 
inspiration of the Scriptures, both in matter and 



u<< olSul 'UcetoLtd, fyJUe, to^oU ''Job*. GpcL? tenth iK-L^yj^c! 1 ^^. ntto-ft^ 

^ wo\ds. All that the doctrine of the inspiration of ^^l^lj^^i 
c ever^ word in the original Scriptures demands, is, tuig. i?,u^~c 
that every thing written in them was written by m-^^/Zf^T S - 
spiratiork lhis has no more difficulty when it ap- u,-^ c, & M?tte! 
plies to tlje advice of Gamaliel, or the Letter ^^^i^ /^ 
Claudius LWas, the chief Captain, than when it i^wj^ v& fo* 
applies to the\Sermon on the Mount. That every 
word of Scripture has been inspired, does not im- ^U^ *f ixAut X 
ply that every speech or sentiment recorded there af^J^'^h^ 
should be inspired^ The Letter of Claudius Ly- 
sias was not inspired, but it is inserted in the Scrip- 4 .o^^ Lu ^ ^ 
tures by inspiration^ and for a purpose useful for&M- ama 
the edification of the man of God. To this view ?* * > ft . u tL 
of inspiration I have never met an objection tbat$t^au*^ 
could detain me for a moment. All that Mr Wil- ^ lU ^ C!A /^ 
son and the Christian Observer bring forward W-jfl^^/ 
perfectly consistent with it. What they allege, is 
a thing so obvious, that it could lie hid from no 
child that is able to read the Scriptures ; and in- 
stead of being in opposition to my sentiments, is 
taken for granted in all my reasoning. Paul's 
writings are in Paul's style; but this applies to the 
thoughts as well as the form. 

" Our general impression upon the whole," say 
the reviewers, "we confess, is, that Mr Wilson 
' is not far from having arrived at the true phi- 
' losophy of the matter/' The thing under discus- 
sion is not a matter of philosophy, nor to be as- 
certained by philosophical investigation. It is a 
matter of divine testimony, the meaning of which 
is to be ascertained by the laws of language. God 
says, " all Scripture is given by inspiration of 



72 



< God;" Mr Wilson, on the contrary, says, some 
^uXdo ^H-y^part of Scripture is human/ Mr Wilson's philoso- 
^X^t^Jr ph 7 then teaches him to contradict God. But Mr 
^XitfrvctU Wilson's theory is as bad philosophy as it is bad 
v^cjtM^Of theology. It makes a part contained, no portion 
rV^e. ? °f the whole that contains it. The manner is sup- 
posed not to belong to the writing of which it is 
the manner. The style belongs to the writing ; and 
if all Scripture is given by inspiration, the manner 
of Scripture must be given by inspiration. No 
theory was ever propounded with less philosophical 
perspicacity than this. It distinguishes what cannot 
be distinguished; and ascribes effects to causes 
with which they have not the slightest connection. 
Besides, this theory makes only the matter divine. 
Then the words are not divine. Are the words 
the matter ? Yet it makes the words of a great 
part of the Scriptures to be divine as well as the 
matter. Is this philosophy ? 

Again, it makes all the matter divine, yet it makes 
a great part of the matter human, supplied from the 
sources of the private knowledge, information, &c. 
of the different writers. Is this philosophy ? Nor 
are these the only inconsistencies of this theory. 
While it makes all the matter divine, it supposes 
the possibility even of some error in the matter, in 
things that do not respect the revelation. 

Again, it makes the inspiration itself the joint 
production of God and man. Is this philosophy ? 

Still farther, it makes only the manner human, 
yet it allows " the greatest freedom and latitude in 
* the use of each writer's knowledge and talents* 



73 



1 and ordinary means of information." Is not this 
something more than manner ? In the exercise of 
this freedom, did they introduce no matter ? If it 
is said that they were superintended in the introduc- 
tion of this matter, I reply that then they had not 
the greatest freedom and latitude. I reply farther, 
that superintendence is not inspiration, and that 
things introduced under superintendence are not 
mere manner. There is no consistency in this 
theory. f* 

w We would; on the one hand/' say the review- 
ers, " zealously maintain against the semi-sceptic, 
' or Socinian disputer, the plenary inspiration of the 
6 Scriptures; we would not allow for a moment 
' with the Belshams and Priestlys of England, or 
1 the Neologians of Germany, that an apostle or 
' Baptist may maintain true conclusions fromincon- 
' elusive arguments; that Jewish prejudices were 
1 allowed to pervert the Christian records; that the 
6 Evangelists were little more than mere ordinary 

* relators of a true story; or that a God of infinite 

* wisdom permitted his record of mercy to a perish- 
' ing world, to be liable to take any doubtful co- 
1 louring by passing through a human medium, 
6 what it must have done, had it not been dictated 

* by his immediate and infallible inspiration." 

I may here remark the want of candour in such 
a use of the word 'plenary. Surely plenary inspi- 
ration cannot apply to the views of those who make 
any exceptions to the inspiration of the Scriptures. 
Does not this phrase refer to every thing in the 
Scriptures, and to every word of the Scriptures? 



74 



Is it not then an abuse of language to speak of hold- 
ing plenary inspiration, while some things in Scrip- 
ture are expressly excepted *from inspiration ? This 
is a mean artifice to sap the foundation of the full 
inspiration of Scripture under the mask of holding 
it. To those unacquainted with what has been 
written on the subject, the phrase 'plenary inspira- 
tion, would undoubtedly convey a meaning very 
different from that in which it is dishonestly used 
by many writers. With what propriety can per- 
sons assert that they hold the doctrine of plenary 
inspiration, when, according to their systems, much 
of the Scriptures was not inspired at all ? Some 
part of it belongs to man, and in many things he was 
only superintended, which is a very different thing 
from inspiration. But why are the poor Belshams 
and Priestlys, with the Neologians of Germany, 
not to be indulged in the exceptions which they 
make to inspiration ? Is this high popish preroga- 
tive, of distinguishing and limiting, where there are 
no distinctions or limitations in Scripture, to be con- 
fined to Evangelical divines alone ? Must the Bel- 
shams and Priestlys surrender to the more ortho- 
dox zeal and predilections of the Christian Obser- 
ver ? What is it that can put down the impious views 
of Belsham and Priestly on this subject? No ab- 
stract reasoning; no abhorrence of Christian Ob- 
servers, no a priori evidence, — nothing but the de- 
clarations of God in the Scriptures. God says, 
" All Scripture is given by inspiration of God." 
This cuts down the horrible blasphemy of Belsham 
and Priestly; and this equally cuts down the less 



75 



horrible blasphemy of the Rev. D. Wilson and the 
Christian Observer. The man who makes any ex- 
ception, cannot consistently refuse any other ex- 
ception. The difference between Mr Wilson and 
Dr Priestly is only in degree. Both proceod on the 
same principle, though the evangelical minister may 
not choose to carry his doctrine as far as the Soci- 
nian philosopher. The Christian Observer is shock- 
ed with the heresy that makes the Evangelists lit- 
tle more than mere ordinary relaters of a true story * 
yet how much higher does even Mr Wilson place 
them in some parts of their narrative ? The Chris- 
tian Observer thinks it necessary that the record of 
mercy should be dictated by immediate inspira- 
tion. But is this the kind of inspiration for which 
Mr Wilson contends in the Evangelists? Much of 
the record is not by inspiration at all. 

" Yet, at the same time," says the Christian 
Observer, " does not every divine, even those who 
e would most strongly object to the latter part of 
' Mr Wilson's statements; nay, does not the most 
t uninstructed person who thinks the very words of 
' King James' translation, the original diction of 
' the Holy Spirit, familiarly speak of the respec- 
1 tive styles of St Paul or St John; of the subli- 
' mity of Isaiah, or the pathos of Jeremiah; of 
1 the characteristic peculiarities of the four Evan- 
' gelists, all relating the same truths by the same 
' inspiration, yet each in a manner which may be 
' justly called his own ?" Very true, that there is 
a distinction in the style of the different writers of 
Scripture, and that each writer may be said to have 



76 



his own. Learned and unlearned admit this. The 
defenders of the full inspiration of the Scriptures 
speak of this, as well as their opponents. But 
what is the inference from all this ? Is it, that Mr 
Wilson has made a discovery, when he has turned 
into a theory what is admitted by all? Is it that, 
as the writers of Scripture have a characteristic 
style, they were not influenced by God in the use of 
that style ? Is it not possible, that God could em- 
ploy their style, as well as their tongue or pen? 
Yes, we talk familiarly of Paul's peculiar style, 
and of John's peculiar style ; and we talk as fami- 
liarly of Paul's doctrine, of Paul's reasoning, &c. 
But in so speaking, we do not mean to assert, that 
the writings of Paul, both in doctrine and style, are 
not God's. Indeed, the very universality of the 
fact of such a manner of speaking, is the strongest 
evidence, that there is no opposition between the 
supposition of a characteristic style, and the belief 
that this, in another point of view, is the work of 
God. As the most ignorant persons find no diffi- 
culty in admitting, that the Scriptures may be writ- 
ten in the respective styles of the different writers, 
while they believe that every word of the Scrip- 
tures is inspired, why will the learned conjure up 
a difficulty to give scope to their ingenuity in form- 
ing theories ? But where have these sages found 
the man who believes that the very words of the 
authorised version, are the original diction of the 
Holy Spirit ? Is there any one able to read the 
Bible, who believes that it was written in English ? 
But this is not all. This person who thinks that 



the Bible was originally written in English, is quite 
conversant with the characteristic style of each of 
the inspired writers ; and can speak as accurately 
as Longinus himself, of the sublimity of the one, 
the pathos of the other, &c. What a compound of 
ignorance and knowledge must he be? 

The reviewers proceed, " Mathematically to ad- 
' just correctly the two points in their minute 
' boundaries, may not be easy ; but it appears to 
' us to be an excess of scrupulosity to deny, when 
1 expressly reasoning on the subject, what we con- 
' stantly admit when not thinking of it." What 
have mathematics to do with settling metaphysical 
distinctions? Were an angel to draw the line, it 
could not be done mathematically. There is no 
more propriety in bringing mathematics to settle a 
difficulty on the subject of inspiration, than in 
bringing a text from the Bible, to settle a point in 
the conic sections. But the distinction as to the 
present subject, is not a line separating between 
adjacent territories ; the same territory belongs to 
different occupiers, to the one it belongs in one 
sense, to the other in another. The Epistle to the 
Romans, for instance, is the Epistle of Paul, con- 
tains the thoughts, reasoning, arguments, language, 
and style of Paul ; but the same Epistle is the 
word of God, both in style and matter. It would 
not only be "an excess of scrupulosity to deny, 
1 when expressly reasoning on the subject, what 
' we constantly admit when not thinking of it," 
but it would also be extreme folly. But at all 
limes, we are willing to make the admission in the 



78 



amplest terms. Did any man ever deny, in rea- 
soning on this subject, that the Scriptures have the 
characteristic style of their different writers ? 

In illustration of this variety of characteristic 
style, substantially expressing the same thing, the 
reviewers give us an example. " Take a familiar 
' example, a parent says separately to four child- 

* ren, ' call your brother Richard/ One simply 
e repeats the message as the words of his parent : 
e 1 Richard, my father desires me to call you/ 
' A second makes the message his own : ' Richard, 
e 6 my father wants you/ A third repeats it as an 

* injunction: 6 Richard, you must go to my father/ 
' The fourth : ' Brother Richard, pray run direct- 
' 4 3y to our dear father, for be wants to speak to 
e ' you/ Are not all these exactly the father's 
' message, and is it to contravene this proposition to 
tf say, that each was delivered in a manner charac- 
6 teristic of the respective speakers ?" Now this 
example is entirely unsuited to the illustration of 
the point for which it is brought. It gives a mere 
variety of expression, but by no means four charac- 
teristic styles. So far from this, the very same in- 
dividual might, in delivering the message, on differ- 
ent occasions, use each of these forms of expres- 
sion. Yes, and twenty other similar varieties. In- 
deed, in repeating a message to different individu- 
als separately, who is it that keeps by a single mode 
of expression ? A hundred such varieties are con- 
sistent with the style of the same speaker. 

As an illustration of substantial harmony, the 
example is equally defective. Did any one ever 



79 



suppose, that mere variety of expression is contra- 
diction ? The most inveterate hater of the word 
of God, would never allege any inconsistency in 
this, if he met it in the Scriptures. There i9 not 
even the shadow of an appearance of contradiction. 
The relation of each of the brothers is as much, 
and as directly, the father's message, as words could 
express. Did not each call Richard ? What else 
was the command of the father ? This example 
then, does not correspond to any of the apparent 
discrepancies in the account of the Evangelists, to 
which the infidel objects. Of what avail would 
such an example be to harmonize the four accounts 
of the inscription over the cross ? Instead of 
sending four messengers to one person, it would 
have been more to the purpose to have sent one 
messenger, and have given four writers to report 
the delivery of the message, with such a variety as 
the Gospels give of the above fact. Indeed, to 
send four messengers on such an errand, was a very 
clumsy expedient. The invention of a reviewer 
ought to be more fertile in resources. If the diffi- 
culties on the subject of inspiration were of the na- 
ture that this example supposes, it would be an 
easy thing indeed to clear them away. He must 
be a sceptic indeed, who alleges that, when a num- 
ber of persons are commanded to call an individu- 
al, the message is not executed, except they all 
use the same words. Certainly the reviewers have 
thought long, and anxiously, and profoundly on 
this subject. After their able solutions of the most 



80 



formidable objections, infidelity must ever after feel 
abashed. 

The reviewers are of opinion, that it does not 
derogate from the author's conclusions of full in- 
spiration, that he has admitted, "though perhaps 
6 not in the most desirable words, a wonderful uni- 
' on of divine and human agency in that inspira- 
' tion." So then, it appears, the reviewers agree 
with the author in making man's part in the busi- 
ness, a constituent of inspiration. Man, it seems, 
has partly inspired the Scriptures. And do the re- 
viewers really think, that it does not derogate from 
full inspiration, that a part has been effected by 
man without God ? Indeed they object to the 
author's phraseology. They would not say, that 
" the Scriptures are both human and divine 
but they say, " when he explicates his proposi- 
6 tion, we agree with him." Now in what sense 
can it be said, that the Scriptures are human, in 
consistency with the assertion, that they are all di- 
vine, or fully inspired ? Only as they are written 
by the instrumentality of man, in the style of man, 
and after the manner of human writings. But this 
will not serve the purpose of the author's theory. 
This theory makes them human as a constituent 
part of their composition ; a part in which God has 
no hand. Now if there is any thing merely hu- 
man in the Scriptures, it cannot be true that they 
are wholly of God, or fully inspired. The au- 
thor's doctrine then is a self-contradiction. The 
only reason why this contradiction lies hid from the 
smallest critical discernment is, that by the assertion 



81 



that the style and manner are human, he frequently 
means no more than what every one admits, namely, 
that they are the characteristic style and manner 
of the writers. In this light the Christian Observ- 
er seems to consider his doctrine; but in this sense 
there is nothing in the assertion that can entitle it 
to be called a theory of Mr Wilson's. Besides, his 
assertions again and again make the style and 
manner a distinct part in the composition of the 
Scriptures, in which God had no hand. 

But why do the reviewers refuse to say that the 
Scriptures are human as well as divine, if they 
adopt the author's conclusions? If a constituent 
part of the composition belongs to man in such a 
sense, that it does not also belong to God, is not 
such a fact as truly human, as the rest is divine ? 
Indeed, according to Mr Wilson, the Scriptures are 
neither human nor divine ; they are not, as he as- 
serts, in contradiction to himself, all human and all 
divine; they are partly human and partly divine. 
But according to his theory, they are as truly hu- 
man as they are divine. The Christian Observer 
then appears to be very slightly acquainted with 
this subject. 

It is much to be lamented, that a periodical 
which has so much influence on the Christian pub- 
lic, should express itself substantially satisfied with 
a theory of inspiration which lowers the character 
of the divine word, without even the alleviating 
circumstance, of removing a single difficulty con- 
nected with the subject. That so crude a theory 
should be dignified as a philosophical solution of a 

F 



82 4 

difficult theological question, hitherto unanswered* 
must surprise every one capable of analysing the 
author's paradoxes. Indeed, a paradoxical way 
of speaking is the only thing original in this scheme. 
Let it be divested of this, and nothing is left for 
Mr Wilson. The fact, that in the Scriptures there 
is a human manner, has never been questioned — has 
never been unknown. That not only the manner, 
but the thoughts, reasonings, and conclusions may 
all be ascribed to the writers, is a thing that no 
man who reads the Bible can question. How then 
can Mr Wilson deserve the credit of unveiling an 
important hidden truth? What has he discovered, 
that was not always known ? To the careless 
reader, who never thinks of forming accurate ideas 
of what lies before him, there is in Mr Wilson's 
language, the appearance of great depth and meta- 
physical acumen in reconciling things apparently 
incongruous ; but when it is more closely examined, 
it turns out to be a pompous way of saying nothing. 
But if God is in very deed, the Author of the 
Scriptures, how guilty must he be, who has exert- 
ed his ingenuity to deprive him of any part of 
them ! How guilty must they be, who encourage 
him in this sacrilege ! 



83 



STRICTURES ON SOME PARTS 

OF THE 

REMARKS OF THE ECCLECTIC REVIEW, 

May 1, 1829, 

ON" 

DR SCHLEIERMACHERS CRITICAL ESSAY ON 
THE GOSPEL OF ST LUKE. 



It will be recollected that it was in the Ecciectic 
Review that the infidel paper appeared, which ex- 
cludes from the sacred canon of inspired Scripture, 
a considerable portion of the Old Testament. It 
will not therefore appear surprising to any who are 
acquainted with this fact, that the same professedly 
Evangelical publication, has, in its review of Dr 
Schleiermacher's Critical Essay on the Gospel of 
Luke, audaciously charged the Evangelists wi:n 
falsehood. The accounts in the different GospeN 
are, according to the reviewers, in some points so con- 
tradictory, that they have fearlessly adopted the 
conclusion that the writers of them have erred. 

The work which they profess to review is on the 
origination of the Gospels, and is of an entirely Neo- 



84 



logical cast. The reviewers indeed censure Iris 
boldness and condemn his errors, but they approach 
him with such awe and timidity, that their gentle re- 
proach must be very agreeable to him, if he has any 
vanity. I shall not trouble myself with the review 
farther, than respects the subject of inspiration. 
Schleiermacher's book is one of those productions, 
that professes to throw light upon the subject of the 
Evangelical History, by tracing the different Gos- 
pels to their origin. Such writers suppose that they 
can discover the different external sources from which 
the Evangelists took their accounts, and that this 
discovery removes the difficulties felt from the dis- 
agreement of their narratives. The elucidation of 
this question has occupied some of the most consi- 
derable Biblical scholars in our own country, and 
the Ecclectic Review has produced a specimen on 
this subject, which shews their entire approbation 
of such attempts. Now, notwithstanding the cele- 
brity of some of the writers who have occupied 
their ingenuity on this subject, and the general ap- 
probation of their labour, 1 will be as rash as Job's 
three friends, and pronounce with the fullest confi- 
dence, that the utmost exertions of talent can never 
produce any thing but a figment in this matter; 
and farther, that though the truth was exactly 
known, it would be of no value for the alleged pur- 
pose. It is indeed perfectly agreeable to the doctrine 
of complete inspiration, that the writers of the Gos- 
pels should have taken much of their accounts from 
external sources. Inspiration applies to them in 
copying a genealogical title, receiving an account of 



85 



a fact from an eye witness, copying uninspired re- 
cords, or making extracts from them, as well as in 
the most important communications of the Holy Spi- 
rit. But to pretend at this distance of time, to discov- 
er and ascertain the different external sources from 
which each of the Evangelists draw their materials, 
is an attempt that sober good sense never will make. 
No historical question can ever be settled by theory. 
The utmost that ingenuity can reach is probability, 
or rather plausibility. A thing may have been so 
as is alleged, but it may not have been so, and no- 
thing but childish credulity will ever receive as his- 
torical truth, the most harmonious tales of fiction. 

[f this is a just obserration, how deplorable is it 
that the young Biblical student should have his ta- 
lents so misdirected as they are likely to be, by the 
remarks in the following extract from the Ecclec- 
tic Review? 

" The subject to which this volume (Schleier- 
1 macher's Essay) relates, is the origination of the 
1 Gospels, particularly the first three. The Bishop 
1 of Peterborough's Dissertation, annexed to his 
1 Translation of Michaelis's Introduction, in 1801, 
6 first brought the subject fully before the minds of 
' English readers. The early Protestant Commen- 
1 tators and Divines, with the exception of Gro- 
1 tius, had scarcely adverted to the subject, or had 
' contented themselves with occasional and brief 
1 notices, such as a slight examination must have 
' ascertained to be quite unsatisfactory. Towards 
1 the beginning of the eighteenth century, Le Clerc, 
1 Mill, and Wetstein, proposed their opinions on 



86 



' this question; and in a following period, itwasin- 

* vestigated with great assiduity by Michaelis and 
' many others of the German critics, and in our 

* own country chiefly by the late Dr Henry Owen, 
tf But it is during the last forty years that the most 
6 laborious diligence has been employed upon it, 

* by the late estimable Dr Niemeyer, by Eich- 
6 horn, and by many others of the German Bible 

* scholars/' Such is the history of this foolish and 
untaught question. The laborious trifling of mis- 
employed learning and ingenuity is here exhibited 
with an approbation that must give a wrong direc- 
tion to the talents of young biblical students, as far 
as it has any influence on the Christian public. In 
what immediately follows, we have the phenomena 
and the theory founded on them. w Whoever reads 
£ a Greek Harmony of the Gospels, must be struck 
' with these facts : that Matthew, Mark, and Luke 
' frequently recite the same facts, but particularly 

* speeches of our Lord, in the same words; — that 
' often there is such a variation of the words, but 
' conservation of the sense, as usually takes place 

* when two persons translate into one language a 
' passage from a foreign book; — that still more in- 
' stances occur, in which the variation is much less 
6 than must necessarily be in the case just suppos- 

* ed, while yet the conformity is not perfect, as in 

* the first class of instances ;— that in some cases, 
' the differences are very considerable, referring to 
& words spoken, actions performed, and the con- 
s secution of events; — and that in other cases, the 
' variations are such as appear irreconcilable by 



87 



* any method that ingenuity can devise, so that we 
' are driven to the conclusion, that some of the 
< Evangelists have erred in the dates of events, the 
' combination of materials, and other minute cir- 

* cumstances, merely of an outward and mechani- 

* cal kind, and which have no effect whatever on 
' the certainty of their narrative, or its grand use 
s for religious instruction." 

Here we have without disguise the appalling as- 
sertion that there are various errors in the Evangeli- 
cal histories. It is not my business to controvert 
this infidel statement, else I might allege that inge- 
nuity might yet do what it has never done, and that 
all former failures are no certain proof that the 
thing is impracticable. These sages are not to take 
it for granted, that human ingenuity can never ad- 
vance beyond their attainments, or even the ad- 
vance of all former times. 1 might allege reconci- 
liation might be possible, though human ingenuity 
should never effect it, and that a proper sense of 
human weakness, as well as a reverence for the 
word of God, ought to have prevented this blasphe- 
mous charge. Pray, gentlemen reviewers, might 
not a harmony of the Gospels be possible, though 
your exquisite sagacity has not found it? 1 might 
allege also, that in effecting a harmony, every pos- 
sible supposition is perfectly allowable, and any 
thing that could possibly reconcile the accounts may 
be taken for granted. Even if two accounts ap- 
parently of the same transaction should be palpably 
irreconcilable, there is still a possibility that it is 
not the same. A sentiment uttered on one occa- 



88 



sion, may have been uttered on another with some 
variety, and that which appears to be the same mi- 
racle variously related, may in reality have been 
two. But I will allege nothing like this. I will 
take it for granted that the blasphemous charge of 
these Evangelical critics is true. Of what use on 
this supposition, are speculations on the origination 
of the Gospels? Can the result of these specula- 
tions produce a harmony where there is acknow- 
ledged contradiction ? They may account for va- 
riety, but can they excuse error ? If the Evange- 
lists have erred, it does not free them from that er- 
ror, to discover its source. After all the specula- 
tions of these theorists, the error, with all its evils, 
still remains. But these errors, it seems, are of 
small moment. They are merely " outward and 
' mechanical." But how errors of dates and false 
combinations of fact, can be called the outward and 
mechanical errors of history, is what I cannot un- 
derstand. Faults of this kind do not belong to in- 
artificial composition. Nor is it true that errors of 
this description have no effect on the certainty of 
the narrative. It is true indeed, that the substance 
of a narrative may be true, while there is a mistake 
in the date ; and two facts may be true, while they 
are erroneously combined; but error in any of these 
respects, brings the whole Bible into suspicion; and 
when the whole claims the authority of inspiration, 
a false date is as bad as a false narrative. When 
we read, " All Scripture is given by inspiration of 
' God," we cannot admit that God has committed 
an error in the date, more than in the transactions. 



89 



This passage of Scripture demands truth in the 
dates, as well as in the substance of the narratives. 
If the Scriptures assert inspiration equally with re- 
spect to every part of them, an error of any kind , ^ 
were it established against them, would overturn « <*- &> c^u- 
their authority."^ jiU^y^^k, 
" 'There are, indeed/' says the reviewers, " some^^^ 1 ^ 1 
* persons who suppose that all and singular the^ 1 ^ ^ 
' sentences and words, in the very order in which ^ > ■ J{^t& 
' they stand through the whole of the Gospel Re- ) e<u ^Ji £^ e - 
' cords, were literally dictated by the Holy Spi—tu^ . 
' rit Extravagant fanatics ! What could lead 
them to so wild a conceit 1 What absurdity to 
suppose that the words and sentences of a book, 
aye, all and singular the words and sentences, in 
the very order in which they stand, should be the 
very words and sentences and arrangement of the 
author of such book I What then, gentlemen, is 
your theory on this subject? Will you shew us 
how any piece of composition can be ascribed to 
an author, when the words, sentences, and colloca- 
tion are not his own ? Are the words, sentences, 
and arrangement, no parts of the writing to which they 
belong ? I am one of those fantastic people who 
believe that a writing contains all the words,s>entences, 
and arrangement, that are found in it; and there- 
fore cannot see how all Scripture is given by inspi- 
ration, if any word originally in the Scriptures was 
uninspired. I am so old fashioned, as to believe, 
that if all Scripture is inspired, there is no Scrip- 
ture which is uninspired ; for I have not yet learn- 
ed to believe both sides of a contradiction. But 



90 

this is not the most extravagant thing that these 
grave reviewers charge on their opponents on the 
question of inspiration. They add, " and that the 
* Evangelists had no other part to perform than 
' that of mechanical hand-writers/' Stop a little, 
gentlemen. Where did you find this ? In whose 
writings can you verify this charge ? I will not 
say that you never met with it, for in London, that 
hot-bed of fanaticism, there may be paroxisms of 
religious phrenzy beyond the cold conception of 
mere provincials. But 1 will say, since I began 
to examine this subject, I have not met it. I 
never met an individual who looked upon the Evan- 
gelists as merely mechanical hand-writers. It is 
universally admitted, that the inspired writers were 
rational organs through which the Holy Spirit com- 
municated his mind, though every word written 
by them in the Scriptures was from God. There 
is nothing irreconcilable in the two parts of this 
statement. God can surely speak his words through 
man, in such a way that the words and thoughts 
shall be the words and thoughts of both. If, how- 
ever, the reviewers make this assertion with respect 
to those who in the late controversy have held the 
doctrine of verbal inspiration, the charge is utterly 
false. And there is some reason to think, that this 
is the allusion. For they add, u those persons, 
1 therefore, do not shrink from maintaining, that the 
i variations, equally with the coincidences, even those 
6 which apparently are the most insusceptible of be- 
' ing bent to reconciliation, all proceeded from one 
6 and the same source, the verbal prescription of the 



r 1 ' lUt^i^UttU^ 

' Spirit of truth." I have distinctly avowed the sen- W, Ui* 
tirnent here alluded to ; and I do not shrink from 
defending anything I have advanced on the subject. ^v^afc 
I have said, that any variety that is warrantable jn^^ aj-&e*& 
the different rehearsals of the same fact by an hon- m > »r<n^** 
est witness in the things of man, is equally warrant- 
able in the different relations of the same fact by ^ 
the Holy Spirit. It is a fanatical misconception 
of the nature of truth and falsehood, to suppose 
that what is consistent with, veracity in the lan- 
guage of man, would be inconsistent with it in the 
language of God. To repeat a narrative with the 
exactness of a message in Homers heralds, is not 
required by truth in the language of either God or 
man. And if there are any discrepancies in the 
accounts of the Evangelists, which do not come un- 
der the protection of this shield, but are real errors, 
I maintain that they overturn the inspiration of the 
Scriptures altogether, and are inconsistent with the 
declaration, that " All Scripture is given by the in- 
6 spiration of God." 

" The chief questions are," say the reviewers, 
'* Did one or two of the first three Evangelists 
1 transcribe from the other? Or did they all make 
1 use of some one common document, taking from 
' it more or less of their respective matter? Or 
f had they a variety of such common documents ? 
( The affirmative of each of these positions has been 
1 maintained by different writers ; and each has at- 
6 tempted to shew the impossibility of any theory 
' being true, except his own." Now, if there is 
an irreconcilable difference between the accounts 



92 



of the Evangelists on any point, how can it har- 
monize them to know the sources from which each 
took his matter ? Do not the reviewers assert, that 
some of the accounts are erroneous? Of what 
avail then is it to point out the source of the error, 
even were this possible? Can this excuse false- 
hood, or convert falsehood into truth ? If two 
English historians differ in the date of any event, 
does it reconcile them to point out the different 
authorities which they have followed ? So far then 
from these being the chief questions on this subject, 
they are not questions that relate to the subject at 
all. And as they are questions that are not an- 
swered by the Scriptures, they are questions that 
no man of a sound mind would ever ask. They 
are questions that never can be answered but by 
conjecture; and on such answers a wise man will 
not build any part of his faith on any subject. 
They are questions perfectly similar to those which 
have inquired after the name and the kindred of the 
Witch of Ender, and the names of those two men 
who accompanied Saul when he went to consult 
her. Who can tell whether her name was Ze- 
phaniah, or in what respect would it profit us to 
know this ? Is it possible to determine, whether 
or not she was the mother of Abner ? Or would 
the settling of this question enrich our knowledge ? 
Whether Abner and Amasa were the two men 
that accompanied Saul on his errand, cannot now be 
known ; and could it be known, would be of no ad- 
vantage. 



93 



Such questions did much occupy the Jewish 
Doctors, and much of the information which they 
communicated in their commentaries is of this sort. 
It is lamentable to find the censors of the press, the 
professed defenders of evangelical sentiments in 
England in the nineteenth century, approving of 
a species of inquiry equally vain, equally useless. 
To find out the sources of the Gospels by theories 
founded on suppositions, is as idle as to attempt the 
discovery of the sources of the Nile or the Niger in 
the same manner. 

That my readers may be enabled to judge with 
more advantage with respect to these competent 
theories, I shall present them with a specimen 
that these reviewers have themselves exhibited with 
approbation. " Perhaps we shall be forgiven," 
they say, " if we here borrow a few paragraphs 
' from lectures on this subject, w T hich have been 

* delivered more than twenty years ago, in one of 
' the Dissenting Colleges near the metropolis." 

" Wherever the apostles went to preach the gos- 
' pel, we find them attentive to two great objects ; 

* the first, the conversion of men to the faith and 
6 obedience of their Redeemer ; the second, the in- 
' struction and edification of those who had been 
% already converted. 

* In discharging the duties of the second class, 
1 the first Christian teachers must have experienced 
' such a state of things as I shall now take the li- 
' berty of supposing. The new converts could not 
' but feel themselves deeply interested to inquire 
1 for all attainable information relative to the cha- 



94 



racter, conduct, miracles, and discourses of the 
Lord Jesus. With such requests, the apostolic 
instructors would undoubtedly be disposed to com- 
ply, to the utmost of their power and opportu- 
nity. We have in Acts xx. 35, a reference to in- 
formation of this kind, but which is not recorded 
by any one of the E\angelists. 

" The relations thus given by the apostles, would 
be of various length, and would comprehend one 
or more anecdotes or discourses ; as the judgment 
of the relaters, under the inspiring guidance of 
the Holy Spirit, dictated the propriety of the se- 
lection, in application to the circumstances of 
those for whose benefit it was imparted. 

" These relations would be justly esteemed of 
the highest value; on account of the important 
and interesting nature of the matter, and on account 
of the promised influence of the Holy Spirit, to 
bring to the recollection of the disciples "all things 
' whatsoever Jesus had said unto them." 

" W"ithin the immediate confines of Judea, the 
apostles would usually deliver their discourses in 
Syro-Chaldaic, the language of the country; but 
in other places they commonly spoke the Alex- 
andrian Greek. 

" Though it is not probable that any of the apos- 
tles, during the first few years of their laborious 
duties, committed to writing any large accounts ; 
they might, upon request, write down such or 
such a particular relation or discourse of their 
Divine Master. Or, perhaps more probably, 
some one of their hearers wrote from their mouths 



95 



' those relations. In each of their various audi- 

■ ences of converts, it may surely be presumed, 
' that one person, at least, was competent to per- 
' form this service for himself and his companions 

* in the faith. 

" It is further a matter of reasonable presump- 

i tion, that such memorials, records, fragments, or 

1 whatever we may call them, would be presented 

' by the writer to the apostle from whose oral in- 

6 structions they had been derived ; with a request 
for revision and correction. Thus, these detached 

' portions of narrative, conversation, or continued 

* discourse, would obtain most justly the sanction 
' of apostolic authority ; and would be preserved, 
' read, circulated, copied, and reverenced accord- 

" To the Evangelists Mark and Luke, such frag- 

* ments would be of immense value. It may be 
' presumed, that they diligently collected them, 

* that they were able fully to appreciate their 
6 claims to authenticity, and that they introduced 
' those which they knew to be of indubitable au- 
' thority into their respective narratives ; and some 
' of them might, with equally good reason, be in- 
' serted by Matthew in his original Syro-Chaldaic 
f Gospel. Luke adverts, in plain terms, to a plu- 
e rality of sources from which he had deduced his 

■ information, when he says, that " those who 
' ' from the beginning had been eye witnesses and 
' ' attendants of the word, had delivered" their de- 

* clarations ; and that he himself u had diligently 
4 6 traced up all from the first." When the translator 



96 



' of Matthew's Gospel into Greek, whether that was 
' himself or any other person, found any of these 
' fragments which corresponded with passages in his 
6 original, he would act properly by availing him- 
6 self of them, and transcribing them into his ver- 
' sion. This conjecture applies, of course, to the 
' Greek fragments, which may be presumed to 
' have been the more numerous of the two classes. 

" The inference from these positions is ; that, 
6 where we find the continued verbal agreements in 
' the three or in two of these sacred writers, we 
■ are reading an authentic Greek fragment, w T hich 
e each possessed and faithfully inserted in his work ; 
6 but that, where we find the coincidences which are 
* not strictly verbal, but lie in the collocation of 
' sentences and members of sentences, each of the 
4 writers had before him a copy of the same Syro- 
' Chaldaic fragment, and translated it into Greek 
6 for his own purpose/' 

Now what is this but a theological novel, as 
much the work of invention as Waverley ? There 
is no more reason to believe that all these supposi- 
tions were actually realized, than that Sir Walter 
Scott gives an authentic history of the attempt of 
Prince Charles Edward. Is it possible that a writer 
can be so frantic as to call on his readers to receive 
conjectures as facts? Must every link of a chain 
of suppositions be admitted as historical evidence ? 
The novels of Sir Walter Scott do not demand our 
faith, though they may possess much historical 
truth ; and they give the knowledge of life, man- 
ners, and of many things that may be profitable ; 



97 



but a thousand volumes of such theological romances 
would not enrich a reader with a single idea. Rea- 
sonings founded on conjecture with respect to the 
things of God, pervert the mind from the true pur- 
suit and the true sources of knowledge. How la- 
mentable to find a Professor in a theological chair, 
in a seminary professedly evangelical, amusing his 
students with reveries about the origination of the 
Gospels, instead of an able exposition of the- con- 
tents of the Bible ! If this is the way in whicii 
the English Dissenters are now taught in their Col- 
leges, it will not be surprising if, in process of 
time, their professors shall amuse the students by 
mimicking the trick of the resurrection of Jesw>. 
Whatever ingenuity a man may discover in devis- 
ing and harmonizing such theories, a sound mind he 
cannot possess, and none but fanatics can receive 
edification. 

But granting for a moment, that all these con- 
jectures were matter of fact, of what avail would 
this theory be for harmonising the evangelists? 
Would it convert the supposed errors in the gos- 
pels into truth ? Would it shew that inspiration 
might communicate a falsehood ? " Upon this ge- 
6 neral basis/' say the reviewers, li we understand 
' that the Professor whose words we have borrow- 
• ed, conceives that both the agreements and the 
' disagreements, and all the other phenomena of the 
' case, may be accounted for ; so far as it is in our 
6 power to account for them." This basis ' A 
chain of suppositions! This is a basis without a 
base. This is truly like the Indian philosopher, 

G 



98 



who supported the world on the back of an ele- 
phant, and the elephant on the back of a huge tor- 
toise. This theory might, indeed, shew the rea- 
son of the coincidences, and the reason of the dis- 
agreements. But does this harmonise the discre- 
pancies ? Does this shew that all Scripture may 
be given by inspiration, while the Scriptures abound 
in errors? To find out the external sources of the 
gospels, even were it now possible, would be no- 
thing but a matter of mere curiosity. The man 
who would give two hundred pounds for a Queen 
Ann's farthing, might value such information. But 
any man of a well regulated mind, would utterly 
undervalue such a discovery. Dr Schleiermacher's 
theory, the reviewers inform us, is essentially the 
same with that of the English Dissenting Professor ; 
but the intrepidity of our critics begin to fail them, 
when the German Neologist attempts to harmonise 
Matthew and Luke, by turning some parts of the 
accounts into allegories and fables. " But when," 
say they, " to accomplish the long-felt desideratum 
' of harmonising this narrative (of Luke) with that 
4 in Matthew i. 18. — ii. 23. he brings out the sup- 
* position, that certain parts in the narrative of each 
' Evangelist are 'poetical allegories, we feel the 
' ground shake under our feet." But had the re- 
viewers been as well acquainted with the country 
as their profession demanded, they would have left 
their guide on the edge of the quagmire, instead of 
accompanying him to the very gulph which now 
affrights them. They should not have entered the 
yery margin of the regions of conjecture on a theo 



99 



logical subject. And after all, are not the fears of 
the reviewers either affectation, or cowardice ? Is 
it worse in the German Xeologist, to charge a false- 
hood on the Bible under the decent veil of allegory 
or instructive fable, than in the reviewers to charge 
in direct terms, various errors on the accounts of 
the Evangelists? These young Xeological recruits, 
who have now shewn themselves so nervous at the 
first f||e, will forget their fears, it is to be expected, 
during the remainder of the engagement. If they 
have now courage to charge the book of God with 
errors in dates and combination of facts, the Xeo- 
logians have no reason to despair, that they will 
come in time to pronounce, without faultering, 
" patches of parable and instructive fable." 

On the whole, it is evident, that the German 
Xeologians have had their influence even on the 
evangelical press of England; and that with all the 
horror expressed with respect to their most extra- 
vagant dogmas, there is an attempt to meet them, 
and a desire to fraternize, as far as possible, in their 
speculations. The tone of this Review indicates 
much more complaisance towards the errors of 
learned ingenuity, than of zeal for the honour of 
the word of God. A reviewer possessing an apos- 
tolic spirit, must have stamped every part of Dr 
Schleiermachers' work with his strongest reproba- 
tion. 



100 



REMARKS* 

ON 

DR PYE SMITH'S THEORY OF INSPIRATION. 



Dr Smith's account of inspiration appears to me 
to proceed on principles at variance with the fun- 
damental laws of biblical interpretation. It founds 
on theory, and supports itself not by the declara- 
tions of the divine word itself, but by the supposi- 
tion of difficulties and views of necessity. What- 
ever distance there may be between the inspiration 
allowed by Dr Haffner, and that contended for 
by this writer, they both build on the same objec- 
tionable foundation, though the religious sentiments 
of the latter, permit him to ascribe a greater de- 



* These remarks were originally subjoined to a Review of 
the Rev. Dr. J. Pye Smith's Defence of Dr Haffner of Stras- 
burg's Neological Preface to the Bible. The latter is in this 
edition omitted ? as being unconnected with the subject of In- 
spiration, 



101 



gree of divine assistance. What is the method that 
just criticism would adopt in ascertaining the na- 
ture and extent of inspiration ? Undoubtedly it is 
by arguing, what saith the Scriptures r Whether 
the Scriptures are inspired at all, and what is the 
extent of that inspiration, can be learned from no 
other source. I turn then to 2 Tim. iii. 16, and 
it immediately gives me full and perfectly satisfac- 
tory information. It declares, that ** all Scripture 
s is given by inspiration of God.'* 5 Here plenary 
inspiration is expressly asserted ; for what is a 
tcriting but words written ? The thoughts and 
sentiments are the meaning of the words. To say 
that a writing is inspired while the words are un- 
inspired, is a contradiction in terms. It is not said 
that the doctrines of Scripture, or the thoughts and 
sentiments of Scripture, but that the Scriptures them- 
selves, are given by the inspiration of God. It is of the 
words as containing the meaning, and not of the mean- 
ing as distinguished from the words, that inspiration is 
directly and expressly asserted. For my own complete 
satisfaction, I require not an additional particle of 
evidence. But if, to silence the captiousness of er- 
ror, 1 proceed to examine what additional light the 
Scriptures afford, I am altogether overwhelmed 
with the mass of evidence brought to bear on the 
-ubject. This may be seen fully exhibited in Mr 
Haldane's Treatise on the x\uthenticity and Inspi- 
ration of the Holy Scriptures. As I am not now 
arguing the point, but only shewing the legitimate 
mode of procedure, in every question with respect 
to what is taught in Scripture, I decline giving even 



102 



an epitome of that evidence. I shall merely sug- 
gest one or two things that may be expressed in a 
few words. Some things in Scripture must neces- 
sarily have been inspired in words, as well as 
thoughts. All prophecies not understood by the 
Prophets, must have had such an inspiration. 
Here, then, we have a key to the nature and ex- 
tent of inspiration. If any other part of the Scrip- 
tures are ascribed to a lower degree of inspiration, 
we are to believe it; but without this, we are to 
look on all as inspired to the same extent, as the 
same inspiration is equally asserted of all. That 
there are different degrees of inspiration, is not an 
assertion of the Scriptures themselves, but an ar- 
bitrary theory of man. We find again, that the 
Apostles, on the prospect of appearing before kings 
and governors, were directed by their Master not 
to think previously on what they were to say, as 
they w T ould be supplied with a defence in the mo- 
ment of trial : " It is not you that speak, but the 
€ Holy Ghost." Now, if verbal inspiration was 
communicated on such occasions, surely it would 
not be withheld from the Scriptures, which are to 
abide to the end of the world. 

But instead of proceeding in this w T ay, to inquire 
of the Scriptures the nature and extent of their 
inspiration, Dr S. as if they could not settle the 
question, invents a theory, and forms an inspiration, 
varying in extent, agreeably to supposed exigen- 
cies, without even alleging the colour of Scriptural 
authority. A plenary verbal inspiration is unne- 
cessary, — is attended ivith difficulties, — detracts 



103 



from the authority of translation, — gives weight 
to objections from various readings, — there/ore, 
there is ?Wt a plenary inspiration. Now, admit- 
ing all the premises, all of which I deny, I do not 
admit the conclusion. Human views of what is 
unnecessary, — the existence of difficulties, — the 
degree of authority due to translations, — and the 
weight of objections from various readings, are not 
a paramount reason to set aside the evidence of 
Scripture doctrine : but I shall examine his four 
objections separately. 

" The hypothesis," says Dr Smith, u that, in 
' every case (for in some it was evidently neces- 
* sary) the identical words were infused into the 
■ mind of the inspired writer, appears to me un- 
1 tenable, for these reasons :" Smith's Scripture 
Testimony to the Messiah, vol. i. p. 62. 

This is not an hypothesis, Dr Smith : it is the 
express assertion of the Holy Spirit. If Dr S. 
could shew that the words, 2 Tim. iii. 16, do not 
imply verbal inspiration, he would show that our 
interpretation of that passage is wrong; not that 
our hypothesis is untenable. We form no hypo- 
thesis on the subject, — we deny hypothesis, — we 
abhor hypothesis, with respect to every truth that 
can be known only by the revelation of God. 

H It is an unnecessary supposition. For the di- 
e vine influence on the mind of the inspired writer 
' would as certainly guide the rational faculty of 
1 expression to the adoption of the best and most 
1 suitable terms and phrases, as if the words were 
1 dictated to a mere amanuensis.'' 



104 



I have never met a writer who betrays greater 
indistinctness in his conceptions than this author. 
I thought the question was, whether the very 
words, all the words originally written in the 
Scriptures, were inspired as well as the thoughts. 
Here the question is shifted, and the matter in 
doubt is supposed to be, whether the words of 
Scripture were infused by the Spirit, or the in- 
spired writers were certainly guided to the adop- 
tion of them. Now, if there is any difference be- 
tween being guided to use a word, and having that 
word infused into the mind. I do not think that 
that difference will be of any avail to Dr S/s the- 
ory. If the divine influence on the mind of the 
inspired writer, has certainly guided the rational 
faculty of expression to the adoption of the best 
and most suitable terms and phrases, then the terms 
and phrases of Scripture are all given by God. Is 
this any thing akin to the theory, that in some 
things the words are left to the writers themselves, 
or that the inspiration is in the thoughts rather than 
the words ? The theory used in practice, and the 
theory vindicated, are quite different. The 
former is designed to afford some relief from the 
supposed consequences of plenary verbal inspira- 
tion ; the latter, if it is not really such, is exposed 
to all its objections. The guiding with certainty 
to the use of a term, secures it as firmly as infusion. 
What is guiding to the use of a word, but inspira- 
tion ? 

By the assertion that such a mode of inspiration 
is unnecessary, the author's scheme requires, not 



105 



merely that certain guidance will supply the 
place of infusion, but that some things do not re- 
quire verbal inspiration at all While the thoughts 
and sentiments are communicated by the Spirit, the 
writers may clothe them with expression. Now, 
complete inspiration is necessary as the ultimate 
resource in securing us that we have the mind of 
the Spirit. We may indeed have an inspired 
thought in uninspired words, as in translations of 
the Scriptures; but that, we have the inspired 
thought, cannot be known on the highest evidence, 
but by knowing the inspired words. How can a 
thought be known, but by the words that express 
it ? And how can we know that the words ex- 
press the thoughts of the author, if they are not the 
words of the author? Had the inspired writers 
been left to themselves, as to the choice of 
words in any part of their writings, they might have 
made a bad choice, and inadequately or erroneous- 
ly represented the mind of the Spirit. The best 
writer that ever moved a quill, may often fail in 
expressing his own sentiments. Instances might be 
given in which the most learned writers mis-state 
their own meaning, and sometimes convey no mean- 
ing at all. Shall the fishermen of Galilee, then, be 
supposed equal to express themselves with unerring 
correctness, if left to their own phraseology ? 

It may be said, that this invalidates the authority 
of translations of the Scriptures. And I admit that 
it does imply, that no uninspired translation can 
have the same authority of the inspired original. 
But where is the man that has ever raised transla- 



601 



tions to such a rank ? The universal consent of 
controversialists takes this for granted, why then 
should the abettors of verbal inspiration be taken to 
account on this head ? In determining the meaning 
of all controverted passages, the last appeal is uni- 
versally to the original. This is the ultimate 
ground on which certainty of meaning can be af- 
fixed. They who cannot have access to the very 
words which the Holy Spirit has inspired, have not 
the highest grounds of certainty as to his meaning. 
The inferiority of the authority of translations to 
the inspired original, is a fact that all must equally 
admit. Dr S. himself asks, if Alethia understands 
German, — supposing this to be a qualification for 
the adequate ability of deciding with respect to the 
sentiments contained in Dr Haffner's Preface to the 
Bible. 

But, while all must admit that uninspired trans- 
lations have an authority inferior to that of the in- 
spired original, no sound critic can question the 
adequacy of translation for all essential purposes to 
the unlearned. The Scriptures are not in a worse 
condition, on this point, than the classics, and all 
ancient and foreign books. Every one knows, that 
to understand what is going on in the Continent, 
the bulk of the people of this country have no es- 
sential need for its languages. Nay, a criminal 
may be tried for his life, upon the testimony of a 
witness whose meaning can only be known to the 
court by interpretation. For the general faithful- 
ness of translations, there may be every testimony 
that, in human affairs, usually determines opinion 



107 



on the most important point?. Nor is the learned 
man himself independent of human testimony: on 
this ground it is that he knows he has the inspired 
original. And though he has the inspired original, 
he has not an inspired or infallible knowledge of 
that original. Tn many things, then, he will be li- 
able to mistake the inspired meaning. While he 
lias an undoubted and a very great advantage over 
the illiterate, he is not without difficulty, nor be- 
yond the reach of error. Tn judging of the fitness 
of the modes of communicating divine knowledge, 
incredulity demands evidence that admits no eva- 
sion ; and learned Christians often desire to indulge 
them in this humour. But in this they err, not 
thoroughly knowing the Scriptures, nor the works 
of creation and providence. In all God's works 
there is the impression of his own hand; — not, 
however, so legible, but chicanery may question it, 
and plausibly ascribe it to forgery. Infidels de- 
mand evidence with respect to the Scriptures, not 
analogical to that in any other of God's works ; 
and when Christians endeavour to satisfy them in 
this, they compromise the dignity of their God 
Is it not enough that men have the same kind and 
degree of evidence, with respect to the revealed 
will of God, that determines them in all other 
things? Must Jehovah shut up every avenue to 
evasion, before we will deign to accept his mercy - 
Salvation is our own concern. Shall we then so 
doat on damnation, that unless one rise from the 
dead, we will not believe the message of reconcilia- 
tion ? If the unlearned man rejects the Scriptures 



108 



because he has not an inspired translation, his own 
conduct, in all other things, will attest the justice 
of his eternal condemnation. To convince him of 
the duty of receiving his English Bible as a revela- 
tion from God, there is no need of teaching him 
the chimerical theory of an inspiration of meaning, 
abstracted from the words that convey that mean- 
ing, that will diffuse itself, with equal facility and 
equal authority, through all the metaphrases, trans- 
lations, and commentaries. It will be perfectly 
sufficient to shew him that he has the same kind of 
authority on which he rests his knowledge of all 
countries, ancient and modern, — and on which de- 
pend the most momentous concerns of man. 

Let it be observed also, that we have greater evi- 
dence of the general correctness and sufficiency of 
translations, than we could have with respect to 
the phraseology of the inspired writers, had that 
been left to themselves. Translations are made by 
the most learned men of their age and country ; the 
inspired writers were generally illiterate, and none 
of them masters of composition. But what is 
of higher importance, every error supposed to be 
committed by the original writers, must remain for 
ever undiscoverable and irremediable ; whereas, if 
a translation commits an error, it can be corrected 
by recourse to the original. The inspired original 
remains a ground-work for reference, with respect 
to all translations. There can be no such appeal 
with respect to any blunders of the inspired writers. 
If they have erred in the choice of a word or 
phrase, we cannot go up to heaven to have it cor- 



109 



rected. The general consent of translations, in re- 
presenting scriptural truth, is such as to afford evi- 
dence of general correctness. It may be said, in- 
deed, that a Bible inspired in thoughts, but unin- 
spired in words, might have been sufficient as to 
all things essential to salvation, with all the errors 
contained in the phraseology. I admit it; but 
would such a Bible be as good a one as that which 
is verbally inspired ? Would such a Bible be 
God's Scriptures ? Could it be said of such a 
book, that it was all given by inspiration of God ? 
Better to have such a book than no knowledge of 
salvation, as it would be better to eat bread made of 
sandy flour, than be starved. But as it would be bet- 
ter to have bread made of pure flour, so it would be 
better to have an inspired Bible. A Christian go- 
ing into a heathen country without a copy of the 
Scriptures, might communicate the knowledge of 
salvation. But had he with him all the best books 
that ever were written on Christianity, could they 
adequately supply the place of the Bible? But 
what reason can be assigned for such stinginess in 
the Divine favour? Why does the all-bountiful 
Author of creation deal out his boons of grace with 
so niggardly a hand ? If he did not employ men 
to complete his works, why should he to complete 
his word ? Is the Almighty weary in working, that 
Christians are unwilling to give him unnecessary 
trouble? Must they enter into minute calculations 
to ascertain how far they can do without his assist- 
ance ? Are they determined to refuse from him 



110 



every thing which they can hope to want without 
irreparable loss? 

Except it is for the same good-natured purpose, 
to make the toil of complete inspiration less neces- 
sary in God, I cannot see the use of substituting, in 
some cases, divine acceptance of words for infusion. 
According to this scheme there is no need for the 
inspired writer to trouble the Spirit for the inspira- 
tion of every word : On many occasions his own 
knowledge of phraseology, subject to the Divine in- 
spection, will sufficiently supply him. 8uch a scheme 
appears to me too bungling to ascribe to any man 
of common sense — to ascribe it to Jehovah is, in my 
view, little less than blasphemy. I acknowledge 
that if God would accept the words suggested spon- 
taneously, or searched for by the inspired writers, 
it would come to the same practical issue. A bill 
accepted is virtually a man's own bill. But to re- 
present a penman of Scripture and the Holy Spirit 
as working on such a scheme strikes me as so ridi- 
culous, that I cannot look at it but with contempt 
and abhorrence. Is it to make the work a little 
easier to Omnipotence, and to save some trouble to 
Him who wearies not in working, that such a con- 
fused and jumbling plan is proposed? What a 
wonderful interruption in the mental operations of 
the Apostles when writing or speaking! How 
many wrong words and phrases, how many inade- 
quate expressions, must be supposed to be present- 
ing themselves to the Holy Spirit for acceptance in 
the minds of the Apostles ! These must all be re- 
jected, and if not replaced by infusion, new ones 



Ill 



must again and again be sought for. If the suit- 
able word is not supplied immediately by the Spi- 
rit, the illiterate fishermen might have halted and 
stammered till eternity, before they would have 
finished one sermon or one letter. The scheme of 
acceptance might not have seemed so utterly ridicu- 
lous, if God had chosen the most learned men as 
the writers of Scripture ; but with illiterate men, 
who are almost as ill supplied with terms and 
phraseology as with ideas, it would be a more te- 
dious process than complete verbal infusion. 

This also shews the absurdity of supposing that 
inspiration of facts, with faithfulness of statement, 
is all that is necessary for Scripture history. No 
subject requires a more full supply of phraseology 
than history. No subject requires more art in the 
disposing of its matter. So difficult is it, indeed, 
that few men in all ages have succeeded in it. The 
historian must be master not only of all things re- 
lated by him, but he must be supplied with the 
terms and phraseology that respect all the objects, 
and all the relations, &c. which are to be repre- 
sented in his history. Illiterate men have many 
ideas for which they have no words — learned men 
themselves are sometimes in the same predicament. 
Let an illiterate man be inspired with a full know- 
ledge of all the affairs of Britain, throughout all 
ages, he will still be unfit to write a History of 
England. He must have a thorough knowledge of 
the words of the language in which he writes, art 
to arrange, and what is still more difficult, a flu- 
ency of expression, and facility of composition. To 



112 



the writers of Scripture history, inspiration of words 
was as necessary as inspiration of facts. But had 
they been the most perfect masters of language and 
composition, to write a history that might be per- 
fectly relied on as a part of the word of God, in- 
spiration of every word was necessary. Let us 
grant, however, for a moment, that plenary ver- 
bal inspiration was not, in our view, essential ; is 
this a reason why we should not receive the ob- 
vious testimony of Scripture on this point ? Shall 
we be allowed to be better judges of what is ne- 
cessary than God ? How many things will human 
wisdom reject in Scripture, if this theory is allow- 
ed ? Some think a general judgment unnecessary, 
seeing every man is judged at death ; and, accord- 
ing to this theory, they are justifiable in attempting 
to explain Scripture in conformity with their opi- 
nion. 

The second objection to plenary inspiration, al- 
leged by Dr S. is — 

" It is attended with extreme difficulties. For 
* example ; in two, or three, of the evangelists, we 
6 often find the same discourse or sentence of our 
4 Lord, expressed by each in different words, 
' though with precisely the same sense. If, then, 
4 we demand a verbal inspiration in any one of these 
6 cases, we destroy the possibility of it with respect 
' to the correspondent passage." 

Instead of finding extreme difficulties in the 
things here mentioned, I can feel no respect 
for the understanding that finds in them any diffi- 
culty at all. It is here taken for granted as an 



113 



axiom, that two or mora accounts of the same 
thing, differing in phraseology, though substantially 
agreeing, cannot all be the words of inspiration. 
Now a very small degree of perspicacity will ena- 
ble any man to see, that instead of being a neces- 
sary truth, this has not the smallest foundation. In 
relating the same event on several occasions, a nar- 
rator may each time use different phraseology ; but 
if his accounts substantially agree, no man will ever 
charge him with falsehood. A man, even on his 
oath, being several times called on to relate a fact, 
will never be found fault with so long as his ac- 
counts substantially agree. To attempt exactly 
the same phraseology, would rather look suspi- 
cious. Now, if such is the case among men, why 
should the Holy Spirit, in relating facts, be bound 
by different rules ? When he speaks in our lan- 
guage, shall he not speak truth, as is required of 
men ? Why should a perfect identity of words 
be at all aimed at ? If the variety of expression 
in relating the same thing in the gospels, would not 
affect the truth of the narration, on the supposition 
that the writers were uninspired men, why should 
it be thought improper for the Holy Spirit to make 
use of that variety ? Must a different law be pre- 
scribed to him when he uses the language of man, 
from that which binds man himself? The thought 
is perfectly childish. Let us take as an example 
one fact differently worded by the four Evange- 
lists — the inscription written over the head of Je- 
sus on the cross : This is Jesus the King of the 

H 



114 



Jews, Matth.— The King of the Jews, Mark— 
This is the King of the Jews, Luke— Jesus of 
Nazareth, the King of the Jews, John. Now 
I maintain, that as four honest men might have 
related this fact, with this variety of expression, 
without any impeachment on their veracity, 
so may the Holy Spirit. The man who says 
that it is impossible for any of these accounts 
but one to be the language of inspiration, vir- 
tually asserts that none of them can be the lan- 
guage of truth, but one. If the four accounts are 
all substantially true, and would not discredit any 
of four uninspired men, they may, without any dis- 
paragement to God, be all the language of the Ho- 
ly Spirit. In speaking the language of men, his ve- 
racity must be tried by the rules of human lan- 
guage. Instead, then, of saying that such a variety 
of expression in relating this fact, supposes that the 
words were left to the Evangelists themselves, I 
will fearlessly assert, that each of the four accounts 
is verbally the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. If 
the four accounts are true and reconcileable as the 
language of men, they are equally true and recon- 
cileable as the language of God. It is a hypercri- 
tical fastidiousness that demands from God an iden- 
tity of expression in narration, which truth never 
demanded from man. From this variety I deduce 
a far different doctrine from Dr S. As, in the word 
of God, I perceive a palpable, I may say a designed 
variety of expression in relating the same thing, I 
learn from this, that the God of truth sanctions the 
great principle that is acknowledged by men in ge- 



115 



neral with respect to the nature of truth, and gives 
not his countenance to that affected morality, that, 
like Dr Smith's, pretends to find imperfection in the 
smallest instance of verbal variety. We have the 
authority of the divine example, that substantial 
truth is truth, with whatever variety it may be ex- 
pressed. Dr S. tells us that, " in two or three of 
■ the Evangelists, we often find the same discourse 
* or sentence of our Lord, expressed by each, in 
' different w T ords, though with precisely the same 
1 effect." Why, Dr S., should this imply that each 
may not be the language of the Spirit? If the sense 
is precisely the same, must the God of truth be 
forbidden to use a variety of expression, perfectly 
allowable to man ? Vet Dr S., certainly not to the 
credit of his understanding, infers from the above 
fact, that, " if we demand a verbal inspiration in 
' any one of these cases, we destroy the possibility 
6 with respect to the correspondent passage." I ad- 
mit this variety, and yet I demand a verbal inspira- 
tion, not merely in some one, but in each of the 
correspondent passages. Any thing that forbids the 
verbal inspiration, will affect the truth of the rela- 
tion. If it is truth as the word of an uninspired 
historian, it certainly is not less truth as the w r ord 
of God. Dr S. must have very limited views of 
possibility, when he imagines an impossibility here. 
It is evident that there is great confusion in his own 
mind on this subject. The assertion, with respect 
to possibility, takes it for granted that variety is 
contradiction. It is evident also, that he looks on 
variety of expression, in relating the same thing, as 



116 



morally faulty, though not in a degree that deserves 
notice as respects man. Were there not some jum- 
ble in his mind of this kind, variety of expression 
would never strike him as inconsistent with inspira- 
tion. 

But I have another observation on the doctrine 
of this objection. It is here positively asserted, that 
the verbal inspiration of all the Evangelists but one, 
is impossible. Now, how does this consist with the 
language of the first objection? In shewing infu- 
sion of words to be unnecessary, he takes it for 
granted that the mind of the inspired writer was 
certainly guided to the best and most suitable 
terms. Now I ask, if the evangelists were guided 
with certainty, by divine influence, to the use of 
the words and phrases employed by them, in all this 
variety of expression, is not the Holy Spirit as 
chargeable with the variety, as if he had directly 
infused the words? If he is innocent as a guide, 
so is he innocent as an infuser. This evidently 
shews that the writer has formed no distinct views on 
the subject, but floats among clouds and fogs of his 
own creation, even in that heavenly climate, where 
godly simplicity would have found meridian light. 
One other observation on this objection, and I have 
done. I admit, for argument sake, that the doc- 
trine of plenary inspiration has great difficulties, 
though I have demonstrated that it has none. What 
can my opponent make of the admission ? Shall 
the existence of difficulties be a sufficient reason to 
deny what the Scriptures, with such a mass of evi- 
dence, assert ? Then give up the sovereignty of 



117 



grace; give up particular redemption ; give up the 
divinity of Christ; give up the Scriptures themselves; 
give up the existence of God. It is a shame for any 
man acquainted with theology and science, to talk 
of difficulties as rendering any sentiment untenable. 
No important subject is free from difficulties, and 
some of the most important have the most puzzling 
difficulties. It is evidently the design of the divine 
procedure, that such difficulties should try the hu- 
mility and the faith of God's people, while they are 
as gins and snares to human wisdom. Yet it is not 
agreeable, even to the wisdom of this world, to de- 
ny a doctrine for having difficulties, even great dif 
Acuities. In opposition to Dr S. I maintain, with 
the greatest confidence of conviction, that rational 
criticism cannot set aside, by difficulties, any doc- 
trine alleging a foundation in Scripture. Though I 
had been obliged to leave this objection unanswer- 
ed, — though Dr S. had given me passages which I 
could not reconcile with the doctrine of verbal in- 
spiration, I would have trampled on his objection 
as insufficient. There are many difficulties in the 
Scriptures that may never be solved by man. A re- 
solution to receive no doctrine that has unsolved 
difficulties, would be a symptom, not of wisdom, 
but of weakness. 

The third objection is, that " it deprives all 
' translations of their claims to the authority of in- 
i spiration." Here, again, the author discovers 
great confusion in his mode of thinking. Though 
I do not believe the inspiration of translations, yet 
such a belief does not result from the doctrine of 
plenary inspiration, with respect to the original. In- 



118 



stead of depriving ail translations of a claim to in- 
spiration, this doctrine is perfectly compatible with 
the supposition, that there might be an inspired 
translation in every language on earth. We may 
indeed believe the inspiration of the original, and 
deny the inspiration of every translation that exists ; 
but our denying of the latter, is not influenced by 
our belief of the former. The question of the in* 
spiration of the original, is not affected by the in- 
spiration or non-inspiration of any translation. But 
let us hear the reason the author gives why 
this doctrine deprives translations of the authority 
of inspiration : " For by the hypothesis the origi- 
* nal text alone can possess that authority." We 
admit, indeed, that our doctrine implies that the 
words of the original alone are inspired : does Dr 
S.'s theory suppose the words of translations to be 
inspired? We admit that the inspired thought 
of the original may be transfused into an uninspired 
translation ; but that we have the uninspired thought 
in the translation, we rest on our own knowledge 
of the original, or on testimony : does Dr Smith's 
theory give us greater certainty of having the in- 
spired thought ? Our doctrine is not more unfa- 
vourable to the authority of translations than is his 
hypothesis. He maintains that the thoughts and 
sentiments, rather than the words, are to be consi- 
dered inspired. We maintain, as well as he, that 
the thoughts and sentiments are inspired, and the 
words also. Now, in a translation, he thinks the 
thoughts and sentiments may remain, while the 
words of the original are left behind. What hin- 



119 



ders us from thinking the same thing ? He brings 
out inspired thoughts from uninspired words ; what 
can prevent us from doing the same from inspired 
words ? In holding the inspiration of words, we 
do not deny the inspiration of thoughts ; but Dr S. 
holds the inspiration of thoughts, and denies the in- 
spiration of words. The difference between us, 
then, is not that our doctrine gives less authority as 
regards translation, but that his hypothesis gives 
less authority as regards the original itself. Our 
view does not disparage translations more than his, 
while his view disparages the inspiration of the Bi- 
ble. If his view approximates the authority of 
translations, and that of the original, more nearly 
than ours, it is not by elevating translation, but 
by lowering the original. The uninspired words 
of translations, so far as suitable, are brought to a 
level with the words of the original, by making 
both uninspired. How can the belief of the inspi- 
ration of the words of the original, lessen the au- 
thority of a translation ? Has not a translation of 
inspired words as good a claim to authority, as a 
translation of uninspired words? Was ever any 
thing so absurd as to suppose, that a translation 
must lose a portion of its authority by a claim of 
verbal inspiration in the original ? Will not every 
person, who impartially reflects a moment, be con- 
vinced, that we give a higher authority than our 
opponents, not only to the original, but also to 
translations ? Translations, according to Dr Smith, 
are translations of uninspired words ; according to 
us, they are translations of inspired words. .The 



120 



objection proceeds on the absurd supposition, that 
the belief of the verbal inspiration of the Scrip- 
tures, necessarily implies the denial of the inspira- 
tion of thoughts and sentiments. By whatever pro- 
cess he extracts inspired thoughts from uninspired 
words, surely by a similar process we may extract 
inspired thoughts from inspired words. Our tran- 
slation of a book more fully inspired than his, will 
surely have as much authority as his, that is the 
translation of a book not so fully inspired. It is an 
odd theory, indeed, that to detract from the au- 
thority of the original, is to add to that of the trans- 
lation. 

But what can be more logical than Dr Smith's 
conclusion? Verbal inspiration deprives transla- 
tions of a claim to inspiration ; for our translations 
are not verbally inspired. This, however, is but a 
specious sophism. It confounds inspiration of 
thoughts with inspiration of words. Of what kind 
of inspiration does this view deprive translations ? 
of words only. But does Dr Smith give inspiration 
of words to translations? Does his theory give in- 
spiration to translations that he acknowledges to be 
uninspired ? Can his theory give a more full inspi- 
ration to the thoughts and sentiments, as contained 
in translations, than ours ? How, then, does ver- 
bal inspiration deprive translations of a claim to 
inspiration ? It denies them inspiration in no sense 
in which Dr Smith claims it. This formidable ob- 
jection, then, amounts to no more, than that, if 
the words of Scripture in the original are inspired, 
they are of more authority than the words of any 



121 



uninspired translation, a truth which I suppose no 
man ever thought of calling in question. 

These observations will prepare us to bear the 
shock of the astounding consequences, that the 
learned doctor draws from our doctrine. * Hence 
% it would follow/' says he, (i that the general bo- 
f dy of Christians, who are under a necessity of 
1 depending on translations, are in fact destitute of 
( any inspired Scriptures." What a dreadful 
abyss is this into which we have plunged the great- 
er part of the Christian world ! How wofullyhave 
I been mistaken ! I had thought that my doctrine 
on this point was not only equally innocent with 
that of my opponents, but had consoled myself, that 
by coming forward in this controversy, I was plead- 
ing the cause of both God and his people. But 
now 1 find that I am labouring only to deprive the 
bulk of my fellow- creatures of the inspired Scrip- 
tures. Never was there a greater disappointment. 
But before 1 admit these frightful consequences, let 
me make an effort to avoid them. According to 
our view, it is alleged that the unlearned are desti- 
tute of the inspired Scriptures. Destitute they are 
indeed of an inspired translation of the Scriptures, 
and destitute in this respect, I presume, as fully on 
Dr Smith's plan as on ours, and 1 have shewn 
something more so. Will Dr Smith have the 
goodness to point out, in what respects the transla- 
tion can be called the inspired Scriptures according 
to his view of inspiration, in which they cannot be 
so called according to ours ? There is a difference 
of authority, between the original and uninspired 



122 



translations. But it is not necessary that I should 
discuss this in this controversy, Dr Smith and all 
others must confess this. [ presume there never 
was a Biblical critic so foolish, as to put an unin- 
spired translation on a level with the inspired ori- 
ginal. In whatever sense Dr Smith's theory can 
allow the English Bible to be the inspired Scriptures, 
our doctrine can allow this in still a higher sense. 

But if the objection as to the authority of unin- 
spired translations is valid, then, according to Dr 
Smith's own views, we have in translations no in- 
spired Scriptures, as far as concerns all those parts 
in which he admits that verbal inspiration was ne- 
cessary. He admits the necessity of verbal inspira- 
tion, in conveying prophecies not understood by the 
prophet. Now in translations, either these are not 
inspired Scriptures, or if they are, all Scripture may 
have been verbally inspired, yet in translation be 
considered inspired Scripture. What is true as to 
any portion, may be true as to the whole. His 
own admissions, then, refute his theory. 

The most formidable view of the objection, how- 
ever, is still to come. "The consequence," he 
observes, " will also reach still higher. As the dis- 
6 courses of our Lord were delivered in the verna- 
6 cular tongue of Judea, the recitals of them in the 
* Greek gospels, cannot be the very words which 
6 he used, but must be translations." Here is a 
tremendous consequence of verbal inspiration. By 
the wicked doctrine, that God, in revealing his will 
to men, uses his own words, we deprive not only 
the unlearned of inspired Scriptures, but we do not 



123 



leave a Bible even to the learned themselves. 
Really I could not have apprehended any such 
dreadful evil, from allowing God to use his own 
words in communicating his own mind. It is a 
shame for a man of learning to throw out senti- 
ments so crude. Surely he ought to have reflected 
a moment, before he ventured to hazard such para- 
doxes. Ought not his good sense to have suspect- 
ed the process of reasoning, that led to draw con- 
clusions so frightful, from premises so harmless. 
Had he allowed himself cooly to examine his own 
reasoning, he could not have allowed his mind to 
be entangled by cobwebs that must break from the 
lowest exertion of human intellect. I should be 
surprised if a very child could be imposed on by 
such reasoning, however unable he might be to 
unravel the sophistry of it. What is the argument ? 
Our Lord spoke in the vernacular language of Ju- 
dea, but the gospels relate his discourses in Greek ; 
therefore, on the supposition of verbal inspiration 
in the speaker, the gospels that speak in Greek 
cannot be inspired. There is a world of obscurity 
and silliness in this reasoning. It supposes every 
translation to be of necessity uninspired. For if it 
is possible for an inspired translation to be given of 
an inspired original, why is it taken for granted, 
that the circumstance of the accounts of our Lord's 
discourses, being recorded in Greek, forbids the in- 
spiration of those accounts? The words of the 
evangelist are, indeed, only a translation of the 
words used by our Lord ; but if the Scriptures are 
inspired, these words are an inspired translation. 



124 



What does it concern us, in what language Christ 
spoke his discourses, if they are recorded to us in 
an inspired translation ? Paul spoke the language 
of the people whom he addressed, — does this imply 
that the words that record this in the Acts of the 
Apostles, are not inspired, because they must be 
only a translation of the words that Paul used ? 

But the consequence of this objection ^ works 
still higher, Jesus Christ surely spoke by inspi- 
ration, his words were verbally the word of God, 
Now, as we have none of these words, none of his 
doctrines, but by translation, according to Dr 
Smith's theory, we are destitute of inspired Scrip- 
ture with respect to our Lord's doctrine. Should 
Dr Smith reply, that though we have not the 
words of Christ, we have the thoughts and senti- 
ments; I subjoin, that this cannot be said by him, 
consistently with this objection, for that represents 
verbal inspiration in the original, as destructive of 
inspiration in the translation. I subjoin further, 
that if verbal inspiration in Jesus Christ, does not 
forbid the inspiration of the gospels as to thoughts 
and sentiments, neither does verbal inspiration in 
the original, forbid the supposition of having the in- 
spired doctrine of Christ contained in uninspired 
translations. Dr Smith brings his elephants into 
the field, but they are so ill disciplined, that in- 
stead of trampling down the enemy, they take to 
flight, and crush his own ranks. The author seems 
to have lost himself, in an attempt, by a sort of 
chemical criticism, to reduce all the inspiration of 
Scripture into the thoughts and sentiments, that 



125 



being then sublimated,it may escape evaporation in the 
words that convey it, and standing wholly uncon- 
nected with phraseology, be ready to transfuse it- 
self with equal strength into all other languages, 
even by uninspired translators. 

Granting, however, that a plenary verbal inspira- 
tion of the Scriptures has a more unfavourable as- 
pect towards translations than the opposite senti- 
ment, this is not to be admitted as a paramount ob- 
jection to a doctrine established by such a weight 
of evidence from the testimony of God's word. A 
sound critic would not allow its authority for a mo- 
ment, — not even in the utmost extent in which it 
could be supposed true. Whatever are the conse- 
quences as to translations, the doctrine of a com- 
plete verbal inspiration in the original Scriptures, 
rests on pillars that hell and earth will never sub- 
vert. 

The fourth objection that Dr Smith opposes to 
the doctrine of a plenary verbal inspiration in the 
Scriptures, is, that — 

" It gives a serious weight to the otherwise nu- 
< gatory objection against the certainty of the Scrip- 
' tures, from the existence of various readings. For 
' no person, however well qualified, careful, and im- 

• partial, in applying the rules of criticism, could 
' assure himself, and still less could he satisfy 

* others, that he had in every case ascertained with 
1 absolute certainty, the one genuine reading. But, 
c if we regard the inspiration as attaching to the 
' matter and sentiments rather than to the letters 
8 and syllables, the objection is effectually preclud- 



126 



' ed. It is not in one instance out of five hundred 
6 that the diversities of manuscripts and other au- 
' thorities produce the smallest alteration in the ul- 
' timate sense. Thus, in the general course, it is 
' all the same, as to practical effect, which reading 
i is accepted : and criticism is called to put forth its 
' utmost strength only in these few cases in which 
' the meaning is affected." 

Upon this 1 observe, in the first place, that it 
virtually excludes verbal inspiration in every in- 
stance. Whether it is that the naked sentiment is 
too shocking for the author himself to contemplate, 
or whether he wishes to disguise it from his read- 
ers, he does not avow his sentiment in the same ex- 
tent in which his theory holds it. He does not 
deny verbal inspiration flatly; — nay, he admits it in 
some instances. Here he speaks of inspiration at- 
taching to the matter, rather than to the letters and 
syllables. But he must mean, not inspiration of 
matter rather than of words, but inspiration of mat- 
ter, and not inspiration of words. The force of 
the objection applies equally to every instance of 
verbal inspiration. If there is a single verse in 
Scripture verbally inspired, this objection lies against 
the credit of that verse. It must either be kept in- 
fallibly as free from corruption by transcribers as it 
was originally pure, else this objection will crush it 
with its serious weight. Now, there is no part of 
Scripture infallibly free from corruption by tran- 
scribers; therefore, to save the honour of revela- 
tion, according to Dr Smith, we cannot suppose an 
inspired word is in the Bible. But, unfortunately, 



this same Dr Smith has admitted, that some parts 
of Scripture must have been verbally inspired \ 
therefore, against all such parts this weighty ob- 
jection has its full force. My mode of reasoning, 
whatever may be the canons of Morus, Doeder- 
lein, &c, would be this. As some parts of Scrip- 
ture must of necessity have been verbally inspired, 
and as such parts are not better secured against the 
mistakes of transcribers than the rest, if this objec- 
tion cannot invalidate the verbal inspiration of the 
one, neither can it invalidate the inspiration of the 
other. 

Dr Smith's plan for saving the honour of inspira- 
tion, reminds me of the way in which the popish 
persecutors saved the honour of the priesthood ; 
when any of the clergy were to be burned, they 
stripped them of their office before they committed 
them to the flames. Just so with Dr Smith and 
inspiration. To preserve it from disgrace through 
accidents in transcribing, he removes it from the 
words of Scripture, and, with all the sublime 
mystery of the schoolmen, places it incomprehen- 
sibly in the thoughts and sentiments. Should any 
bold unbeliever ask, How can it be known that the 
inspired sentiment is expressed with infallible cor- 
rectness, if the words are not also inspired? The 
best answer is, It is a mystery, it is all a mystery. 

But these apprehensions of Dr Smith are altoge- 
ther visionary. Instead of giving a serious weight 
to the objection referred to, the doctrine of plenary 
verbal inspiration adds not a particle to its weight. 
I maintain that it is no way connected with such an 



128 



objection ; and that to view it in this light, betrays 
a mind destitute in a more than ordinary degree, of 
critical discrimination. " No person," it is said, 
" however well qualified, careful, and impartial, in 
' applying the rules of criticism, could assure himself, 

• and still less could he satisfy others, that he had in 
f every case ascertained, with absolute certainty, the 

* one genuine reading." Granted; fully granted. But 
what then ? What makes such a thing necessary, 
in order to defend verbal inspiration ? Does the 
doctrine of plenary verbal inspiration imply, that 
our copies must infallibly contain the pure original 
in every instance ? It does not, Dr Smith. It as- 
serts that the Scriptures, as God gave them, were 
his, not only in matter, but in every word of them. 
But this by no means implies, that the present 
copies are, in every instance, perfectly correspon- 
dent with the original. The permanency of the 
purity of the divine word, was committed to the 
care of his Providence, in the use of the ordinary 
means, by which he can always perfectly secure 
his purposes. There is indeed every reason, a pri- 
ori, to think, that God would not suffer his word 
to be essentially corrupted ; and as Dr Smith him- 
self admits, there is from fact the most satisfactory 
evidence that he has not permitted it to be mate- 
rially corrupted. But the doctrine of verbal inspi- 
ration has nothing to do with this, whatever may 
be the extent of corruption by transcribers. If 
any man were so mad as to argue, that every word 
in our Greek New Testament is infallibly the same 
with that originally given by God, the various 



readings to which Dr Smith refers, would be an 
answer to such a roadman. But to point to the va- 
rious readings as an objection to the plenary verbal 
inspiration of the Scriptures, as they came from 
God, is to confound two things entirely distinct 
and independent of each other. Nor does our doc- 
trine make a single corruption more than Dr S.'s 
theory : nor does the assertion, that the original 
word, whose place the corrupted word now fills, 
was an inspired word, cause greater incertitude 
with respect to the true meaning, than the opinion 
that it was uninspired. On the other hand, this 
theory, in order to save the Scriptures from the 
disgrace of losing a few inspired words, degrades 
them from the rank of verbal inspiration, and leaves 
us to gather the truth of God out of the words of 
men. Both of us must acknowledge the fact to the 
same extent. To suppose that the lost words were 
God's own words, is no more injury to what re- 
mains, than to suppose that they were man's words. 
On the other hand, this hideous theory robs us of 
the rapturous consolation, that we have in the 
original of the Scriptures the very words of God, 
with the few trifling exceptions alluded to. Would 
it be a greater benefit to have all the words or 
Scripture human, than to have them all divine, 
with the exception of a few unimportant variations? 
If the loss of a few unimportant wonls, considered 
as divine, is an injury to the Bible, is not the 
loss of all the words of Scripture, as inspired, infi- 
nitely a greater loss ? To save the loss of some 
trifling articles, Dr Smith sinks the ship with all its 
i 



130 



treasures. To prevent the disgrace of losing a few- 
inspired words, he divests the Scriptures of verbal 
inspiration. We have incomparably the best Bible. 
Every word of our Bible was God's, as it was first 
„ . delivered. Dr Smith's Bible was never any thing 
\j7sl11j^ ^uman in language. We have still the same 
cc-^tUvi^ Bible, with a few trifling exceptions. Dr Smith's 
Bible has lost no divine words, because it never 
possessed any. The very worst part of our Bible 
is as good now, as the very best of Dr Smith's 
ever was. 

The doctrine, then, of plenary verbal inspiration, 
stands clear of every solid objection. All the in- 
genuity of this learned writer has not been able to 
devise any thing that will fairly bear on the subject. 
His objections are so very inapplicable, that I can- 
not bring myself to believe, that any man of a dis- 
criminating mind ever really laboured under their 
weight. They appear rather to have been sought 
by study, to justify a sentiment originating in some 
other cause. They are more like the forced thoughts 
of declamation, when it strains to make the best of 
a bad cause, than the serious scruples of a sound 
mind. Had he given up a fortress committed to 
him by his sovereign, to forces so inconsiderable, 
there could not have been found a court-martial in 
the empire that would not have doomed him to lose 
his head. The doctrine of verbal inspiration is one 
of the fortresses committed to Christians by Jesus 
Christ. Dr Smith cries " mercy," and strikes his 
colours to a most contemptible enemy, without ever 
firing a gun. Had he mustered the royal forces, 



131 



and come to an actual engagement with the squalid 
foe, he would have put him to flight at the first lire. 
He would have found the enemy totally without 
ammunition. There might be indeed as much pow- 
der as would enable him to puff a little, but not to 
do any execution. 

This theory, indeed, is one of the most inexcus- 
able that ever was forged for the interpretation of 
Scripture. On most occasions men are tempted to 
form theories from the real difficulties of the case, 
and from some appearance of Scriptural assertion. 
Plausible objections may be alleged from the Scrip- 
tures against the doctrine of the Trinity itself; and it 
requires solid criticism to give a satisfactory answer 
to the Arian in the interpretation of some passages. 
But against the plenary verbal inspiration of the 
Scriptures, there is not even alleged the assertion 
of a single passage of the book of God. Does the 
truth of any thing contained in Scripture, require 
this theory? Is it called for by any apparent 
contradiction? Is it the only way to solve some insu- 
perable difficulty ? No such thing. Never was 
error more inexcusable; for never was error less 
provoked by difficulty, or less sheltered by appear- 
ance of Scriptural assertion. Where is the passage 
that has the most remote appearance of teaching 
the doctrine contended for by this writer? Fright- 
ened by the phantoms that himself has conjured up ? 
to escape them he plunges over a precipice. Ple- 
nary verbal inspiration is asserted by the Scriptures, 
— such inspiration is necessary to perfect security 
in conveying the mind of the Spirit,— to such in- 



132 



spiration there is not in Scripture one even appa- 
rently contradictory expression, with such inspi- 
ration, there is nothing inconsistent in their con- 
tents,- — to reject such inspiration, then, on the stress 
of the objections alleged by this writer, is contrary 
to the first principles of evidence. 

Having now examined the objections on the au- 
thority of which Dr Smith rejects the plenary ver- 
bal inspiration of the Scriptures, I shall attend to 
his remarks on the noted passage, 2 Tim. iii. 15, 
16, which are as follows : 

c< That from a child thou hast known the holy writings, 
which are able to make thee wise unto salvation, through the 
faith which is in Christ Jesus. Evtry writing divinely in- 
spired [is] also profitable for instruction, for conviction [of 
error], for recovery [to that which is right], for training up 
in righteousness." It appears to me impossible to establish, 
from the Greek text alone, so as to preclude all fair objec- 
tion, either side of the agitated question, whether ^wmfrrcg 
agrees immediately with warx, ygoztpii, or is (as it is translated 
in the common version and in many others) a part of the pre- 
dicate. But I apprehend that the scale is turned in favour of 
the other construction by the evidence of the venerable Syriac 
Version, whose antiquity is almost, if not quite, apostolic. It 
reads, " And that, from thy childhood, thou hast known the 
holy books," &c. — "for every writing which has been written 
by the Spirit, is valuable for instruction," &c. The Vul- 
gate' confirms this interpretation : — " Omnis scriptura divi- 
nitus inspirata, utilis est ad docendum," &c. It is evident that 
the Apostle, in v. 16, resumes distributively what he had before 
advanced collectively : so that " every writing divinely inspir- 
ed" is a description by which the apostle designates each and 
every one of the writings comprized under the well- under- 



133 



stood collective denomination, T J f g g<£ ycapuciTX, the holy 
writings, Timothy, and every contemporary Jew or Christ- 
ian, needed no explanation of this phrase. They knew it, 
■as one of the most common terms of usage, to denote the 
ygxQoii, uriUngs, or scriptures, to which the Lord Jesus was 
in the habit of referring, as to the ultimate divine authority 
(e. g. Mat. xxii. 29. xxvi. 5-1. Luke xxiv. 32.), the searching 
of which he enjoined (John v. 39.), and which it is impossible 
to suppose, with any shadow of reason, that he did not design 
to use in the sense in which he knew that all his hearers 
would understand him ; namely, as expressive of the whole 
sacred canon of the Jews, for to them " were entrusted the ora- 
cles of God." (Rom. iii. 2.) The general tenor of the New 
Testament most clearly recognizes, under these descriptions, 
the whole received scriptures of the Jewish nation : and, 
when a particular passage is cited, it is usual to refer to it in 
the singular number: Yyg«P% i Vp*£>J 'uvrn. and&rtg* 
y^octyn, the writing, or scripture, this scripture, another scrip* 
ture, (John xix. 24-, 37. Mark xii. 10.) 

Thus the passage before us, though we adopt that construc- 
tion of ,9-*fi7rvSvffT0s, which Unitarians generally approve, fur- 
nishes the strongest testimony to the inspiration of each and 
every of the books of the Old Testament. The importance 
of this conclusion, in relation to our present subject, and to 
every other part of the controversy with the Unitarians, needs 
not to be pointed out." — Smith's Testimony to the Messiah, 
Vol. i. p. 27, 28. 

It is satisfactory to find, that even admitting the 
translation of the passage preferred by Dr S. to be 
irrefragably proved, it has no colour of opposition 
to plenary verbal inspiration. This translation, as 
plainly as the other, asserts the verbal inspiration of 
every thing inspired. " Every writing divinely in- 



134 



* spired/' verbally declares that the writing, that is, 
the words written, are inspired. Tf any writing is 
inspired, the words must of necessity be inspired, 
because the w 7 ords are the writing. The Syriac 
Translation implies this as fully as ours. The Bi- 
ble is said to be a writing written by the Spirit of 
God. A more express attestation of verbal inspira- 
tion could not be found. 

The only point of view, then, in which we need 
examine this translation, is its bearing on the Uni- 
tarian controversy. And it is very satisfactory to 
find, that though he prefers the Unitarian con- 
struction of this verse, Dr Smith decidedly op- 
poses the Unitarian import of it. While, 
therefore, I am happy to find Dr Smith and 
myself on the same side on this important 
matter, I will take the liberty to suggest to him 
a few things to invalidate the reasons of his 
preference of the Unitarian construction of this 
verse. Though I blame him very much for his 
excessive partiality for learned men, and his perni- 
cious theorising on Scripture, — that he is a learned, 
ingenious, and deeply read theologian, I cheerfully 
acknowledge, and I would gladly bring him over 
altogether to the right side. I observe then, in the 
first place, that if the ambiguity, in the construc- 
tion of this passage, exists to the extent that Dr 
Smith alleges, that is to say, if there be a passage 
in Scripture so ambiguous, that neither the connex- 
ion, nor any other resource, furnished by the Scrip- 
tures themselves, will fix its definite meaning, I 
maintain that we are so far without revelation, and 



135 



that such a passage of Scripture might as well ne- 
ver have been written. There may be, and there 
confessedly are, passages in the Bible, which are 
not understood. But it is not because they con- 
tain in themselves what necessarily renders them 
unintelligible, as Dr Smith virtually asserts respect- 
ing the passage in question; an assertion, than 
which it is not easy to conceive a greater indignity 
to the language of Holy Writ. If the Scriptures 
are really such a book, a pope we must have. 
Surely the word of God was not given but to be 
understood ! And if it does not afford evidence to 
explain itself, it is not sufficient. 

1 remark farther, that the Syriac version, and the 
unanimous consent of all uninspired versions, can- 
not legitimately be acknowledged as authority to 
lix the meaning of phraseology indeterminate in it- 
self. They afford us nothing more than the opi- 
nion of their authors ; and though they lived among 
the Apostles, if they are not inspired, they may 
have been mistaken. To justify an opinion as hav- 
ing apostolic authority, it is not enough to shew that 
it was professed by some person in the age of the 
Apostles; it must be shewn to have been approved 
by the Apostles. Some opinions we know to have 
been entertained by Christians in the very times of 
the Apostles, which were contrary to the apostolic- 
doctrine. I care not how high is the date of the 
Syriac version ; if it is not inspired, I will take the 
liberty of questioning its propriety. Still less can I 
admit the paramount authority of the Vulgate. If 
we are not prepared to adopt all its errors, let us 



136 



not claim its patronage in a particular emergency. 
A degree of countenance may, no doubt, be claimed 
from reputable translations, which will be increased 
by the antiquity, learning, and impartiality of the 
authors. But it never can be legitimately allowed 
to be decisive. Such authority is to be referred 
to, not so much to establish an opinion, as to shew 
that a translation has not been made for the occa- 
sion. If, in supporting any of my opinions, I differ 
from the common version of the Scriptures, a sus- 
picion ought to rest upon every man's mind, that I 
have made my translation to cover my opinion. 
Now, to do away this impression, it is very ma- 
terial for me to shew that I am not singular in the 
translation ; and that others, well acquainted with 
the language, have adopted the same interpretation, 
although they did not entertain such opinion. In 
this way, if the Syriac version actually favoured the 
Unitarian sentiment with respect to inspiration, it 
would be of very great importance for them to al- 
lege its authority. Such a use may be made of 
the authority of versions; but a casting vote never 
can be justly allowed them. If, then, it is impos- 
sible to ascertain the construction of these words 
from the text itself, no uninspired version can ever 
authoritatively fix it. 

If the translation is to be made from the words 
of the common copies, there seems no difficulty in 
the construction. The substantive verb is natur- 
ally to be understood to each of the adjectives a 
What reason can be given for giving it to one, and 
withholding it from the other? And why should 



137 



we adopt a various reading in order to create a dif- 
ficulty ? If the substantive verb is to be taken into 
the text between the two adjectives, it is naturally 
to be construed with the first, and understood to 
the last. It is not the natural darkness of the con- 
struction that has caused the various interpretation 
of this passage, but disaffection to the truth contain- 
ed in it. Men who are conscious of holding opi- 
nions that the Scriptures condemn, yet are anxious 
to obtain the sanction of their authority ; or at least, 
to remove the most conspicuous passages that op- 
pose them, would gladly limit the inspiration of the 
Holy Book. All their efforts, then, are directed 
to pervert the testimony of this glorious declaration. 
If they cannot force it to prevaricate or bear false 
witness, nothing can protect their impious sentiments 
from the open reprobation of God. 

It may be observed also, that according to the 
Unitarian construction, the particle ky is rather 
cumbersome than useful. It is very difficult to 
dispose of it to any good purpose, or to assign it an 
office in which it will not be troublesome as well as 
useless. In the translation, " for all divinely in- 
' spired Scripture is even useful," the word even, 
instead of contributing a portion to the sense, es- 
sentially misrepresents it. To translate the con- 
junction ky also, as Dr S. does, is not so bad, but 
still not at all satisfactory. Its application is dubi- 
ous, — and its import not easily perceived. It is 
well known, that on some occasions, it will admit 
this translation ; but to argue, that because it ought, 
in some places, to have this acceptation, it may 



138 



have it in any other, according as it may suit the 
purposes of the critic, is not sound criticism. To 
justify such a signification here, it is not enough to 
produce examples in which it has such a significa- 
tion ; it is necessary also, to produce the authority 
of similar constructions. This is a canon of criti- 
cism which may be easily defended ; — a canon, 
however, little respected by biblical interpreters. 
What word does Dr R. mean the conjunction to af- 
fect? What is the precise effect he understands it 
to have on the meaning ? This unfortunate ky in 
the Unitarian construction, is treated as poor Bat- 
tier was treated in the 10th Hussars. The royal 
commission, indeed, has given it a seat at the mess, 
but all the dignity of that commission has failed to 
procure it the attention of the company. It is 
doomed to sit unregarded ;— it speaks, but no one 
hears. 

Though 1 perfectly agree with the learned wri- 
ter, that the Unitarian interpretation does not fol- 
low from the admission of tho Unitarian construc- 
tion of this verse, yet, for the above reasons, I pre- 
fer the common translation. And though we can 
still maintain the fortress, though we give up this 
out-work, I do not think we ought to give up the 
most unimportant battery, while we are able to fire 
a gun from it. A consciousness of sufficient re- 
maining resources, and an affectation of exces- 
sive candour, may influence us sometimes to give 
up to the adversary what is perfectly tenable. It 
is right to make concessions for a moment, to give 



139 



the enemy a more signal defeat. But an inch of 
Scriptural ground is worth eternal war. 

Let us now view this passage on the Unitarian 
construction. And while I agree with the learned 
writer in the result, I differ from him in the way of 
obtaining that result. I have objections to his 
translation, to his paraphrase, and to his reasoning. 
His translation is at variance with his reasoning. 
He very justly argues that the phrase srjtf&ygafti 
refers to every book of the Old Testament, as be- 
ing notoriously the most appropriated to that sense. 
If so, every writing is not adequate as a translation 
of the above phrase. Though writing is a literal 
translation of yg*f it is not a proper, because not 
a determinate translation of it here. For, as in the 
original, ypt*pn is here taken in its appropriate 
sense, its translation must correspond to it, not in 
its literal, but in its appropriate sense. As writing 
has not such an appropriation in English, it is not 
an adequate translation, although perfectly literal. 
Scripture ought to have been the word, for it has 
in English exactly the same appropriated meaning 
that y^sepvj has in the original. There is no greater 
mistake than to suppose that a translation is good, 
according as it is literal. It may be asserted, with- 
out exception, that a literal translation of any book 
cannot be a faithful one. If the word is not used 
in its literal sense in the original, it is a mistransla- 
tion of it to translate it literally. This is a canon 
of biblical interpretation of universal appJication, 
and of the greatest moment — a canon not only of- 
ten violated, but to violate which is, in the estima- 



140 



tion of some translators, the highest praise. A 
translation of this kind, instead of conveying the 
original with additional light, is perfectly unintelli- 
gible. When la iera grammata is translated holy 
writings, as Dr 8. translates the words, there is 
not the smallest objection; because what is inde- 
finite in the word writings, is rendered completely 
definite by the epithet holy. His language can 
feearthis, and holy writ, and the sacred writings, 
are phrases as definite as the appropriated word 
Scriptures. 

Dr Smith justly understands Theopneustos as 
descriptive of pets a graphe. But it is not descrip- 
tive of it when translated every writing; because 
every writing is not Theopneustos, inspired. It is 
descriptive of graphe only in the appropriated 
sense of that term. Every scripture is divinely in- 
spired, but every writing is not According to 
Dr Smith's translation, it is essentially necessary 
to understand Theopneustos not as a description, 
but as a limitation — not every writing, because it 
is divinely inspired, but every writing that is in- 
spired, or as far as it is inspired. Dr Smith's trans- 
lation, then, is at war with his sense of the pas- 
sage. 

I have an objection also to his paraphrase. The • 
supplementary matter connecting pasa graphe 
with the assertion is divinely inspired, ought not 
to be which is, but because it is, or as being, or 
some phrase assigning a reason. The Vulgate, in- 
deed, adopts this construction, but it does not sanc- 
tion this interpretation. " Omnis Scriptura divi- 



141 



M nitus inspirala" ought cot to be translated, 
" All Scripture which is divinely inspired," but 
" All Scripture divinely inspired/' and should be 
paraphrased as it is divinely inspired, or by some 
supplementary words indicative of description. As 
the Vulgate does not design to exclude the inspi- 
ration from any part of Scripture, but to assign the 
reason of the reading of it being profitable, the sup- 
plement should not be a limiting phrase, but a de- 
scriptive one. " All Scripture, because it is in- 
' spired by God, is profitable," &c. The Syriac 
version is not an exact translation, according to 
any reading of the text ; it is rather a paraphrase. 
If, in the expression, " Every writing which has 
' been written by the Spirit," the phrase every 
writing is understood in its general sense, then 
the passage cannot be descriptive ; for every writ- 
ing is not divinely inspired. If by every writing 
is meant every book of Scripture, as Dr Smith 
seems to understand the translation, then the trans- 
lation into English should not have been every 
writing, but every Scripture. 

Dr Smith states, very correctly, that the terms 
graphe, graphai, and iera grammata, are all ap- 
propriated, in the most decided and notorious man- 
ner, to signify the inspired writings of the Old Tes- 
tament ; and he reasons, very justly, that it is im- 
possible for it to have any other signification here, 
as Timothy, and every Jew or Christian, needed 
no explanation of these phrases. This is a most 
decisive and conclusive argument against all those 
who, with Dr Smith himself, object to the inspi- 



142 



ration of particular passages in books confessedly 
inspired ; but I object to the conclusiveness of his 
reasoning, when he rests on this fact, the certainty 
of the inspiration of u each and every of the books 
' of the Old Testament/' In my judgment, the 
decidedly appropriated sense of the term graphe, 
can afford no assistance in proving that these books 
were inspired. A Unitarian may reply, \I fully / 
' grant that these phrases designate the books of 
' the Old Testament, but I deny that this admits 
6 their inspiration. For any thing that can be 
6 learned from the appropriations, there may not 
* be a line of inspiration in the whole." Now, to 
such a man T have nothing to reply. With respect 
to the passage under consideration, the Unitarian 
might observe, " I acknowledge that Paul here 
4 ' uses the term graphe in its appropriated sense ; 
6 he does not, however, assert inspiration of all 
6 Scripture, but that all Scripture which is inspir- 
6 ed is profitable," &c. Now, that his reasoning 
is false, is not proved by reference to the appro- 
priated meaning of graphe, nor from the para- 
phrase by which he expresses his meaning of the 
text, in which also he agrees with Dr Smith, but 
by shewing, as I have done, the true and natural 
supplementary matter to be descriptive, and not 
limiting. That this interpretation of the Unitarian 
is false, might also be solidly proved by the ab- 
surdity to which it leads. It supposes that there 
must be a standard or criterion by which, in read- 
ing the Scriptures, we may distinguish what is in- 
spired from what is uninspired. If there is no such 



143 



criterion, we cannot make the proper use of what 
is inspired. Xow, as no such criterion is given in 
Scripture, there cannot be need for such criterion. 
This is an axiom — the man who refuses it is not 
worth reasoning with ; he ought to be given up as a 
hypochondriac, or as a man who perversely denies 
first principles, without which there can be no rea- 
soning. If it is said that we may form a criterion 
for ourselves, I reply that such criterion may be 
false ; and at best, is but human, and can have no 
authority with ourselves, and much less with 
others. 

While, therefore, I hold with Dr Smith, u that 
' the passage before us, though we adopt that 
• construction of Iheopneustos, which Unitarians 
' generally approve, furnishes the strongest testimo- 
■ ny to the inspiration of each and every of the 
' books of the Old Testament/' I do not think 
that the strength of the evidence is brought out in 
his translation, or paraphrase or reasoning. 

But it is not only of advantage, it seems to have 
the Bible disincumbered of a useless load of inspi- 
ration as to words ; it will be still more eminently 
improved, by expelling inspiration from those tri- 
vial unimportant passages, in (which the inspired 
writers have impertinently foisted in matters too 
undignified for divine influences. Dr S. quotes the 
following passage from Parry on Inspiration. 

u If the inspiration and guidance of the Spirit, respecting 
the writers of the New Testament, extended only to what ap- 
pears to be its proper province, matters of a religious and 
morel nature ; then there is no necessity to ask, whether every 



144 



thing contained in their writings were suggested immediately 
by the Spirit or not : whether Luke were inspired to say, that 
the ship in which he sailed with Paul, was wrecked on the 
island of Melita, (Acts xxviii. 1.): or whether Paul were 
under the guidance of the Spirit, in directing Timothy to 
bring with him the cloak which he left at Troas, and 
the books, but especially the parchments, (2 Tim. iv. 
13.) ; for the answer is obvious, these were not things of a re- 
ligious nature, and no inspiration was necessary concerning 
them. The inspired writers sometimes mention common oc- 
currences or things in an incidental manner, as any other plain 
and faithful men might do. Although, therefore, such things 
may be found in parts of the evangelic history, or in epistles 
addressed to churches or individuals, and may sland connec- 
ted with important declarations concerning Christian doctrine 
or duty, yet it is not necessary to suppose, that they were un- 
der any supernatural influence in mentioning such common 
or civil affairs, though they were, as to ail the sentiments they 
inculcated respecting religion." — Vol. p. 65, 

Now, to refute this impious theory, nothing more 
Is required, than to quote Dr S/s observations on 
2 Tim. iii. 15, 16.; and to me it is perfectly asto- 
nishing, that the learned writer did not see the in- 
consistency between this and his views of that im- 
portant passage. Jf " each and every of the books 
* of Scripture" are inspired, how is it that any part 
of these books can be uninspired ? This is a pro- 
blem that Dr S. must solve, for he holds both sides 
of the contradiction. If " all Scripture" is inspir- 
ed, nothing uninspired can belong to writings called 
Scripture. We have only to enquire, then, whether 
sueh things are found in books called Scripture, of 
which, without exception, inspiration is asserted : 



145 



but to say that a book is inspired, and that a part 
of it is uninspired, is a contradiction. That may 
be true of a part which is not true of the whole ; 
but what is true of the whole, must be true of 
every part. The doctrine here inculcated, then, 
is not only untrue, but absurd. 

The proper province of inspiration, as we are 
told, is confined to things of a moral and religious 
nature. The proper province of inspiration, I main- 
tain, is every part of a book declared by God to be 
inspired. It is the proper province of every writer 
to be pledged for every thing in the book which he 
authenticates by his name. Would I permit an 
amanuensis to foist in, under my name, every thing 
he chose to communicate to the public? And if 1 
adopt any thing from him, am I not pledged for it 
as my own? Shall the inspired writers, then, take 
a liberty with God, that would be utterly unwar- 
rantable with man ? Is it not the province of God 
to be the author of every part of the book which 
he recognises as his own writing? For an amanu- 
ensis to foist in any thing not inspired, would be 
downright forgery. If there are some things unfit 
for inspiration, such things should not have a place 
among things inspired, so as to make a part of a 
book of which inspiration is, without exception, 
asserted. Had God permitted such a heterogene- 
ous mixture to be given to the world, than which 
nothing can be more absurd to suppose, he would 
not have allowed the whole to be designated by 
his name. And he would doubtless have given a 
criterion to distinguish what is divine from what is 

K 



146 



human. That no such thing is the case, beside the 
absurdity of the thing, there is the highest evidence 
in the fact, that no such criterion is given by God. 
But what God has not done, Mr Parry has kindly 
condescended to perform for him. Impious mor- 
tals! will men never learn to give the Almighty his 
own place? Will the Pharisees never cease, by 
their traditions, to make void the law of God ? 
Were such a discrimination necessary in the book 
of God, would it be left to men to form the cri- 
terion ? If such a creterion is necessary in reading 
the Scriptures, and if no such criterion is given, the 
Scriptures are an insufficient rule. Why shall we 
not, then, admit the traditions of papal Rome, as 
well as the theories of presumptuous Protestant 
theologians? If Mr Parry has a right to make 
one criterion, has not Dr Priestly a right to make 
another? If the former is permitted, by his theory, 
to purge the Scriptures of certain useless though 
harmless excrescences, shall not the latter be equal- 
ly entitled to devise a theory, that will expel all 
doctrines supposed to be derogatory to human un- 
derstanding? If the smallest license of this kind is 
permitted, nothing shall be left as God's in the 
Scriptures, that atheistical impudence shall think lit 
to question. The inspiration of Luke in writing 
the account of the shipwreck, and that of Paul in 
writing for the cloak and parchments, stand on the 
same foundation as their inspiration in recording the 
plan of salvation. Nor are these facts, and all si- 
milar ones, destitute of religious instruction. But 
to be able to shew this is not necessary fpr the vin- 



147 



dication of their inspiration. That they are inspir- 
ed, is ascertained by their being found in a book 
that is divinely attested as inspired. The plan that 
sound criticism would pursue, is not to read in or- 
der to discriminate in the Scriptures by a human 
theory, what is divine from what is human, but to 
read every verse as the dictate of God, and endea- 
vour to find out the religious use that the Holy 
Spirit intended that we should derive from it. Ad- 
mitting that in some things we should not be suc- 
cessful, whether is it more rational to reject such 
things as not being given by inspiration of God, or 
to suppose that the divine word may contain trea- 
sures that we are not able perfectly to exhaust ? 
Is it modest to say, that a passage can have 
no religious use, if we cannot immediately per- 
ceive that use ? Xo, it is not modest, it is athe- 
istical, it is irrational. For my own part, there is 
not one of those parts of Scripture, that human 
wisdom has objected to, in which I have not ad- 
mired the divine wisdom. Instruction is abundant- 
ly conveyed in them, and in a way that shows the 
Scriptures to be divine. One of these passages, (2 
Tim. iv. 13.) that this learned writer is unwilling 
to dignify as a part of the revelation of God, I have 
known a very learned clergyman of the Church of 
England, Dr Siokes, to choose as the text of a 
sermon, which he preached at a visitation of the 
Bishop of Derry. That in which Mr Parry and 
Dr Smith can find no religious instruction, Dr Stokes, 
as learned as any of them, considered as full of in- 
struction for all the clergy of a diocese. And, in- 



148 



deed, many of these things that captiousness and 
learned ignorance are so much inclined to disrelish, 
may be shewn to be the most conspicuous indica- 
tions of authenticity. God hath said, " The meek 
" will I guide in judgment/' Is it any wonder, 
then, that men who search the Scriptures with the 
arrogance of inquisitors, should, as to the wisdom 
and application of many things, be sent empty 
away ? These haughty doctors do not sit humbly 
at the feet of Jesus to learn, but with their self-in- 
vented standards, impiously seat themselves above 
him. 

" This view of the subject," we are told, " will also en- 
able a plain Christian, in reading his New Testament, to dis- 
tinguish what he is to consider as inspired truth. Every thing 
which the Apostles have written or taught concerning Chris- 
tianity ; every thing which teaches him a religious sentiment 
or a branch of duty, he must consider as divinely true, as the 
mind and will of God, recorded under the direction and 
guidance of his Spirit. It is not necessary that he should in- 
quire, whether what the Apostles taught be true. All that he 
has to search after is, their meaning • and when he under- 
stands what they meant, he may rest assured, that meaning 
is consistent with the will of God, is divine infallible truth. 
The testimony of men who spoke and wrote by the Spirit of 
God, is the testimony of God himself; and the testimony of 
the God of Truth is the strongest, and most indubitable of 
all demonstration." 

What silliness, arrogance, and impiety is here ! 
And have plain Christians for eighteen centuries 
been reading the Seriptures, in which some things 
are divine, and some things are human, without any 



149 



criterion to distinguish? Has this ingenious divine 
succeeded at last in discovering the longitude ? 
Was the world in darkness till the rising of this star ? 
What pity that the author had not been born many 
ages sooner ! What a loss to mankind, that his 
view was so long in making its appearance ! The 
want of this discovery, has subjected plain Christ- 
ians in all the previous ages of Christianity, to con- 
found the word of God with what is merely hu- 
man. Can there be an instance of more insuffer- 
able arrogance and folly ? A view that suggests it- 
self after the lapse of nearly two thousand years, 
is necessary to enable men to read the Bible so as 
to ascertain what in it belongs to God ! Without 
this, men cannot properly discriminate what is the 
Bible ! And dare any wretched mortal presume to 
give a criterion of discrimination, in determining the 
authority of what is contained in the book of God ? 
Impious men, give your assistance to the Almighty 
and the all-wise in the plans of creation and provi- 
dence, where your folly cannot mar the comfort of 
the plain Christian. But foist not your theories on 
the volume that contains the words of eternal life, 
and the instructions of heavenly wisdom. Rob not 
the unlearned Christian of the cheering conviction, 
that " All Scripture is given by inspiration of God." 
Let your impious ingenuity gather laurels in the le- 
gitimate fields of invention ; try your powers in the 
arts and sciences, and by your sagacity rival the 
glory of the inventor of the steam engine. But 
leave the poor Christian his Bible whole and entire. 



150 



Seek not to bewilder him by your ignis fatuus, — 
darken him not by your discoveries,— impoverish 
him not, by bestowing on him your riches. I have 
no language in which I can adequately express my 
abhorrence of such a theory, while it is impossible 
to restrain emotions of contempt for its folly. What 
blasphemy and absurdity are implied in the idea of 
a plan for enabling plain Christians to distinguish 
what belongs to God, in the book that God himself 
calls his own word ! Can the man who has made, 
or those who adopt this theory, quarrel with Ari- 
ans, who give a similar new guide to direct plain 
Christians to discriminate in the Scriptures what is 
important or fundamental truth, from what is uncer- 
tain, unimportant, and speculative? Nothing, say 
they, can be fundamental truth, but what is found 
in each of the gospels. By such infidel criterions, 
men continue to reprobate every thing in the Scrip- 
tures which they dislike. 

But of what service is this theory, even were it 
admitted? It is utterly indefinite. What will ap- 
pear to have religious instruction to one, will have 
none to another ; and as every man must be guided 
in this by his own view, every one will have a Bible 
longer or shorter according to his opinions and taste. 
Besides, on such points there will be no possibility 
of coming to one judgment, for there is no common 
standard. That which these two learned theologi- 
ans look on as so utterly without interest, we have 
seen another writer, equally learned, admiring as a 
manifestation of divine wisdom, and a proof of the 
divine perfection of the book of God. And how 



151 



easy will it be. according to this scheme, to discre- 
dit any part of Scripture, by alleging that it is only 
a matter of speculation, not of essential faith ? 
Were all men to adopt this theory, they would be 
as far as ever from being brought to agreement by 
it. 

Upon the supposition, that the u common and 
1 civil affairs" mentioned in the Scriptures, are to 
be considered in no point of view as things of a 
religious nature, and consequently not inspired, 
there is a door opened for the introduction into the 
book of God, of as much uninspired matter as the 
discretion of the writers might think fit to insert. 
If, without inspiration, they might introduce one 
sentence or observation, they might have added a 
thousand volumes on the same principle. What 
havoc does this theory make on the word of God? 

This discovery is also applied to settle the ques- 
tion, with respect to the inspiration of Paul, in 
what is taught in the seventh chapter of the First 
Epistle to the Corinthians. 

u The above view of the apostolic inspiration will like- 
wise enable us, as I apprehend, to understand the Apostle 
Paul, in the seventh chapter of his first Epistle to the Co- 
rinthians, where in some verses he seems to speak as if he 
were not inspired, and in others as if he were. Concerning 
some things, he saith, t4 But I speak this by permission, 
and not of commandment :" (ver. 6.) and again, " I have 
no commandment of the Lord; yet I give my judgment, as 
one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord tj be faithful." 
(ver. 25.) The subject of which the Apostle here delivers 
his opinion, was a matter of Christian prudence, in which the 



152 



Corinthians had desired his advice. But it was not a part of 
religious sentiment or practice; it was not a branch of Chris- 
tian doctrine or duty, but merely a casuistical question of 
prudence, with relation to the distress which persecution then 
occasioned. Paul, therefore, agreeably to their request, gives 
them his opinion as a faithful man : but he guards them 
against supposing, that he was under divine inspiration in 
that opinion, lest their consciences should be shackled, and 
leaves them at liberty to follow his advice or not, as they 
might find convenient. Yet he intimates that he had " the 
Spirit of the Lord'* as a Christian teacher ; that he had not 
said any thing contrary to his will ; and that the opinion 
which he gave was, on the whole, advisable " in the present 
distress." But the Apostle's declaration, that as to this par- 
ticular matter, he spoke ** by permission, and not of com- 
mandment," strongly implies, that in other things, in things 
really of a religious nature, he did speak by commandment 
from the Lord. Accordingly, in the same chapter, when he 
had occasion to speak of what was matter of moral duty, he 
immediately claimed to be under divine direction in what he 
wrote, " And unto the married 1 command, yet not I but 
the Lord, let not the wife depart from her husband." (1 Cor. 
vii. 10.) This would be a breach of one of the chief obli- 
gations of morality, and therefore Paul interdicts it under 
the divine authority. Respecting indifferent things, he gave 
his judgment as a wise and faithful friend; but respecting 
the things of religion, he spake and wrote as an Apostle of 
Jesus Christ, under the direction and guidance of his Spirit." 
— Parry y s Inquiry, p, 26 — 30. 

A very satisfactory defence of the inspiration of 
the Apostle on this occasion, may be found in the 
" Authenticity and Inspiration of the Scriptures," 
by Mr Haldane, — a defence so full, as, in my ap- 



153 



prehension, not to admit a single additional obser- 
vation. But in order to cut down these impious 
theories, I will, for argument's sake, admit the 
failure, and shew that even this does not concede 
the consequence with respect to the plenary inspi- 
ration of the Scriptures. If the Apostle guards 
us against the supposition of his inspiration on this 
point, then, doubtless, every thing is to be taken 
as inspired, when there is no such intimation. The 
message about the cloak and the parchments, the 
medical advice to Timothy, and the many common 
and trivial incidents mentioned in his letters, have 
their claims to inspiration more fully authenticated. 
All we lose is inspired direction on one point, in 
which, according to the hypothesis, inspiration is 
expressly disclaimed. But I go further. Admit- 
ting that Paul disclaims inspiration on this point, I 
maintain that the chapter containing the admission, 
as a part of Scripture, is inspired equally with any 
chapter in the Bible. Though he were not inspir- 
ed to decide the question, he was inspired to write 
the account which he has given of the matter. If 
the Apostle has told us that he is not inspired cm* J 
this point, he has been inspired to make the denial.^-' 
Not a line has he written in that chapter, that fe^' 
not immediately from the Holy Ghost. Gamaliel - 
was not inspired, but inspiration has recorded his - w > 
advice; and that document, as recorded by the ' ru - y^ L ^ : y 
Holy Spirit, suggests inspired instruction to us. r ~ 1 ' V _ M [ \ " 
Dr Smith, you are engaged in a very unholy k'W^'u rt i u 
cause, — your genius and learning are very ill em-- jjjj j 
ployed. By excluding the Song of Solomon, yuu£ ^^aJU l u 



154 



unsettle the canon of Scripture, and unhinge the 
mind of simple Christians, by your speculations. 
You have denied the verbal inspiration of the word 
of God, and every kind of inspiration to all the 
passages that any one may chuse to consider not of a 
religious or moral nature. Your speculations are very 
crude, — your sentiments are self-contradictory, — 
and your half-formed conceptions shew that you have 
been too hasty in giving your opinions to the world. 
You must go back or forward, — stationary you can- 
not remain. Make the best use of your learning, but 
humble yourself before God, and seek more of the 
teaching of his Spirit in the reading of his word. 
Without much learning, it is impossible to be a Bib- 
lical critic ; but all the learning of Bentley will be 
insufficient, without that child-like disposition of 
the wisdom given from on high, which teaches to 
cry, Speak, Lord, for thy servant heareth. Mary, 
the sister of Lazarus, is a better model for a Christ- 
ian minister than Dr Haffner, the learned professor 
of Strasburgh. 

As might be expected, the unhallowed theory of 
inspiration adopted by Dr Smith, leads to a devas- 
tation of the Scriptures, to which no bounds can 
be assigned. It is a gangrene that will gradually 
spread until it eats the very vitals of Christianity, 
inspiration is first denied to the words, next to such 
things as relate to common and civil affairs : from 
this the progress to the non -inspiration of whole 
books of Scripture is perfectly easy and natural. 
So far, it appears, the disease has spread its bale- 
ful contagion in some professedly evangelical wri- 



loo 



tors of the present day. An article has appeared 
in the Ecclectic Review for November in 
which the inspiration of several books of Scripture 
is denied; and, as has been stated in the Edinburgh 
Christian Instructor, the divine origin of no less 
than one hundred and forty chapters of the Bible 
has been impugned. In this article we have the 
following passage. 

" If the books of Proverbs and Solomon's Song can be 
proved to be inspired, it is not, we apprehend, on the ground 
of either external or internal evidence, but on that of the 
inspired character attaching to their royal author. That God 
was the author of his wisdom, we know, as the Holy Spirit 
is the author of all true wisdom, the inspirer of fc4 ail good 
counsels" as well as of u all holy desires and just works." 
But, whether he was " moved by the Holy Ghost" in pen- 
ning those compositions, or rather in speaking the proverbs 
ascribed to him, is not so certain as to rank among articles 
of faith. There appears to us far stronger ground for believ- 
ing that " Ezra the priest, the scribe," acted and spake un- 
der the guidance of inspiration ; but it is observable, that he 
is never spoken of as a prophet, nor does he lay claim to that 
character. Even, however, admitting both Solomon and Ezra 
to have been inspired men, it would be very difficult, we con- 
ceive, to prove, that this character attached to the anonymous 
authors of the book of Esther and the books of Chronicles. 
We must therefore still contend, that these books, though 
very properly included in our canon as both authentic and 



* In the first edition of this Review, it was stated, that 
Dr Smith was said to be the author of this paper. But 
that gentleman has disclaimed it. I wish I could also add 
that he disclaims all tampering with the Sacred Canon. 



156 



true, " are possibly not inspired and that the question 
whether they are so or not, comes within the proper range 
of human opinion.' ' 

To enter into the proof of the inspiration of these 
books, so rashly questioned by this writer, would 
be altogether a waste of time in this place. It 
will be perfectly sufficient to shew that Dr Smith 
cannot consistently question it. The business may 
be effectually done from his own admissions. He 
strongly contends that 2 Tim. iii. 15. 16, asserts 
the inspiration of each and every of the books com- 
prised under the well understood collective denomi- 
nation, Ta iera grammata, the Holy Writings : 
and that even the Unitarian construction of that 
passage furnishes " the strongest testimony to the 
inspiration of each and every of the books of the 
Old Testament." Now we have only to ask, 
were the above books a part of the Old Testament 
when Paul wrote that Epistle, in order to be com- 
pletely assured that they are inspired ? Were they 
a part of that collection called Scripture, the Scrip- 
tures, the Holy Scriptures, the oracles of God, 
&c? If they were, their inspiration is unquestion- 
able. To settle this question, it is only necessary 
to know the Jewish canon. If Dr S. can deny 
the inspiration of any book of the Old Testament $ 
in accordance with his own explanation of 2 Tim. 
iii. 15, 16. it requires more perspicacity than I pos- 
sess, to discern the agreement. Should he say 
that he cannot see any thing in these books that 
can entitle them to the denomination, Scripture, 
Holy Writings, oracles of God, &c. ; this might be 



157 



very becoming in the mouth of an infidel, but is 
very inconsistent in the mouth of him who admits 
them to be a part of the Jewish Canon ; and 
who applies the assertion of Paul, 2 Tim. iiL 15, 
16, to every part of that canon. Nothing can be 
more absurd than to apply Paul's assertion of in- 
spiration to each and every book of a well known 
collective denomination, and afterwards to refuse it 
to certain books unquestionably contained in that 
collection. Can they be a part of the collection, 
and not deserve the commendation bestowed on 
every part of that collection ? How can he refuse 
them the denomination of Scripture, after saying 
that the meaning of that well understood collective 
denomination, every Jew and Christian recognised 
as including the Scriptures to which Jesus was in 
the habit of referring, as to the ultimate divine 
authority ? How can he question the inspiration 
of some books of the Old Testament, after assert- 
ing that 2 Tim. iii. 15, 16. furnishes the strongest 
testimony to the inspiration of each and every of 
the books of the Old Testament ? Were not these 
books, books of the Old Testament ? To admit 
the canon to apply (2 Tim. iii. 15, 16.) to every 
book of the canon, and yet to question the inspira- 
tion of some of the books of that canon, would be 
an instance of absurdity and contradiction to be 
matched only in the doctrine of transubstantiation. 
A deist might consistently admit the canon, and 
labour to shew, from the contents of any particular 
book, that it could not be inspired. This would 
not only be consistent, but effectually^serviceable to 



158 



his cause. Could he succeed in shewing that a 
certain book belongs to the collective denomination 
received by the Jews as Scripture ; and that it con- 
tained evidence of non -inspiration, he would prove 
Paul a liar, (2 Tim. iii. 15, 16.) and discredit the 
inspiration of every other book in the canon. If 
one part of the volume attested as inspired by 
Paul, be proved to be uninspired, his attestation is 
worthless with respect to every book in the col- 
lection. The writer of this article then, is not only 
inconsistent with Dr Smith in this matter, but ac- 
tually labours in the cause of infidelity, with re- 
spect to Revelation in general. As far as the au- 
thority of the canon, and the general attestation of 
inspiration are concerned, both the authenticity and 
inspiration of the whole Scriptures are subverted. 
For if the canon has admitted one uninspired book, 
there is no security that it has not admitted more : 
if that canon has been recognised by Jesus with 
one uninspired book, every book in the collection 
may be uninspired, notwithstanding that recogni- 
tion : if Paul (2 Tim. iii. 15, 16.) asserts inspira- 
tion of the whole volume, while one book is unin- 
spired, no book in the volume can be allowed cur- 
rency from his stamp. If he has sealed one for- 
gery, the great seals should be put in other hands. 
I am unwilling to suspect Dr Smith of secretly de- 
signing to undermine the authority of the Scripture; 
yet as he excludes the Song of Solomon, I cannot 
clear him, but at the expense of his judgment. I 
cannot see how a man of sound understanding can 
apply 2 Tim. iii. 15, 16. to each and every book of 



159 



a collection, while he denies inspiration to any 
book, unquestionably contained in that collection. 

The doctrine of the writer of the article under 
review^ is a perfect absurdity. He tells us, that 
the book of Esther, and the books of Chronicles, 
though not inspired, are " very properly included 
' in our canon, as both authentic and true." Now, 
what canon ? The answer is self-evident : Canon 
of Scripture. What other canon is the writer 
here concerned with ? Included in the canon of 
Scripture, while they are not Scripture ! Included 
in a canon to which they do not belong ! Included 
in the canon of inspired books, while they are not 
inspired! As well may the writer be included in 
the peerage, while he is not a peer, or be enrolled 
among crowned heads, while he is but a subject. 
Include the writings of men among the writings of 
God, under one designation ! Was ever absurdity 
more monstrous ? 1 had thought that the Church 
of Rome had exhausted all the mines of absurdity ; 
but it seems there are some rich veins of unappro- 
priated ore, left to be worked by Protestant di- 
vines for the support of sophistry. The authenti- 
city of a book does not entitle it to be taken into 
the canon of Scripture. Mathematical demonstra- 
tions have no more right to a place in the canon of 
the holy books, than the most extravagant romance. 
They are truths, but they are not the truths writ- 
ten by the Sr.irlt of God, for the spiritual instruc- 
tion of mankind. The Jewish canon was the can- 
on of Scripture, not the canon of authentic books 
in general. Our canon is the canon of the books 



160 



acknowledged as inspired, not the canon of all true 
history ; the writer's canon would include all the 
authentic history of all ages and countries. Is not 
a canon a rule? And what rule ought any unin- 
spired book to be in the things of God ? Now, let 
me ask him, could you seriously think of placing 
in our Bible all authentic records ? If riot, why do 
you give a place to the book of Esther, and the 
books of the Chronicles, which in your opinion are 
uninspired ? Would you call such a collection the 
Bible, the Scriptures, the Holy Scriptures, &c. ? 
I thank thee, great Jesus, that thou hast not left 
the making of our Bible to the ingenuity of learned 
doctors. Much of thy wisdom in it, appears to 
them to be folly. Their learning is employed in 
mending thy work, and polishing what thy hand 
ha,s left unfinished. Go, vain man, enrol thy name 
with that of him, who, in the arrogance of his 
wisdom, boasted that he could have given a better 
model for creation, had he been admitted to the di- 
vine counsels. But let the Bible alone. It is the 
very wisdom of wisdom. The blemishes that the 
wisdom of this world finds in it, are often its great- 
est excellencies. 

Let us examine a little farther this writer's prin- 
ciples of evidence, as furnished by this passage. 
Though he denies these books as inspired, he ac- 
knowledges them as authentic and true. Now, 
how does he know them to be authentic and true, 
independently of their being a part of the canon, 
whose inspiration is asserted by Paul ? Who is 
the voucher for the wicked Jew who wrote the 



161 



book of Esther ? What other authentic docu- 
ments prove every part of this narrative ? If there 
is a single fact in it uncorroborated by other unsus- 
picious testimony, it stands unaccredited, and the 
admitted wickedness of its author levels it to the 
rank of a romance. If it was written by a wicked 
Jew, we may be sure that he has falsified. We 
cannot depend on a single fact recorded. Was it 
ever known that a wicked Jew could write a. page 
of truth, when the interest of his country would be 
served by a lie ? Believe the narrative of a wick- 
ed Jew about his religion and country ? Go, then, 
to the Jesuits for the authentic annals of Christiani- 
ty. Swallow all the fables of popish miracles. 
Receive, as the truth of God, every adventure in 
the lives and legends of the saints. Then, that the 
renowned St Dunstan held the devil by the nose, 
at the door of his cave, till he made all the rocks, 
hills, and rallies to re-echo his horrible bellowing, 
will become a matter of sober history. 

How very easily is this writer satisfied with 
evidence of authenticity, contrasted with his obsti- 
nacy with respect to inspiration. Inspiration be 
denies to these bocks, though they are part of a 
canon, to the whole of which inspiration is express- 
ly ascribed by an inspired apostle. Their authen- 
ticity he grants without evidence, though, abstract- 
ed from their inspiration, there is the strongest rea- 
son to suspect them of imposture. Now, my view 
of evidence leads me to admit their inspiration, 
from their being part of a canon, to every part of 
which inspiration is ascribed by an Apostle, and to 
L 



162 



recognize their authenticity, as they are inspired. 
Their being in the canon, is the chief proof of their 
authenticity. Of the authenticity of some books, 
there might be no other evidence than the fact that 
they are in the canon. I know the history of the 
Old Testament to be true, because it is inspired ; 
take away its inspiration, and you remove the 
strongest evidence of its authenticity. 

Now, instead of resting the whole proof of the 
inspiration of these books on the general inspired 
character of their author, I rest no part of it on 
this ground. Indeed, the evidence that Solomon 
was an inspired man, is, that he wrote these books. 
Even had we known him to have unquestionably 
written books acknowledged by all to be inspired, 
we would not rest the inspiration of these books 
on that ground. This argument might go a cer- 
tain length towards proof; but the main evidence 
would be, that these books were a part of the Jew- 
ish canon, recognised by our Lord, and to every 
part of which inspiration is ascribed by the Apos- 
tle Paul, There may be additional evidences, ex- 
ternal and internal, but this is a pivot, that without 
any other support, will bear the whole weight of 
their inspiration. That Solomon was " moved by 
* the Holy Ghost in penning these compositions," 
is matter of Christian faith, as well as that Paul 
was so moved to write his epistles. 

It would be still more difficult, in this writer's esti- 
mation to prove the inspiration of the book of Esther, 
and the books of Chronicles. Not in the least more dif- 
ficult. Do they belong to the canon, each and every 



163 



book of which is asserted by Paul to be inspired ? 
Here is no second question. The author appears 
to labour under a mistake with respect to the na- 
ture of the proof of inspiration. He appears to 
make little or no account of the authority of the 
canon, though authenticated by the highest pos- 
sible sanction. After the fullest evidence of such 
a title, other evidence, external and internal, seems 
to be considered as assential before its recognition. 
Now, to me it is quite obvious, that when a book 
has the authority of the canon so augustly sanction- 
ed, it needs to a Christian no other recommenda- 
tion. To him it ceases to stand on its trial. To 
question it further, is to suspect the guarantee of 
Jesus and his Apostles. We may add to its proofs, 
for the sake of confounding infidelity ; but to refuse 
our own assent till they are produced, is most cri- 
minal unbelief. 

With respect to internal evidence, nothing can be 
more satisfactory than when a book of Scripture, 
by the nature and excellence of its contents, proves 
its origin to be divine. This is eminently to be 
found in the holy books. But let it be observed, 
that this is not essential in every book, and that 
the nature of some books altogether precludes it. 
Books of genealogies, and other matters, have their 
use in the inspired volume. But how could genea- 
logical tables prove the inspiration by internal evi- 
dence ? These tables may be taken verbally and 
literally from public documents; but as they are 
inserted in the inspired volume, they have the seal 
of inspiration. Internal evidence, essentially re- 



164 



quisite in a revelation, is only negative. A divinely 
inspired book can contain nothing that is inconsis- 
tent with the divine perfections, as revealed in the 
gospel. But when a book is proved by external 
evidence, it is absurd to suppose that it can contain 
internal evidence to disprove itself. When, there- 
fore, a book is proved by external evidence to be 
inspired, wisdom directs us to be very cautious in 
pronouncing its contents to be unfit for the matter 
of revelation. Such a book could not have exter- 
nal evidence. To judge rashly in this way, is to 
rush on the buckler" of the Almighty. It is the 
very sin of our first parents, — the sin that the wick- 
ed one is still prompting men to commit, — to be as 
gods, knowing good and evil. Does vain man con- 
sider himself a perfect judge of what in all cases 
is fit for God to write ? Is he able to give counsel 
to the perfection of wisdom ? Must revelation 
come up in all things to his ideas of propriety ? 
Must the Almighty conform himself to his standard ? 
How disgusting to the mind of an humble Chris- 
tian, to hear presumptuous men dictating on the 
nature of divine revelation, as if they were equal to 
God ? Their pure minds take offence atthegross- 
ness of the word of him in whose sight the heavens 
are not pure. It is awful presumption to pretend 
to be disgusted with the Song of Solomon, when it 
is found in the canon of the word of God. What- 
ever my own judgment might be, if left to deter- 
mine, a priori, of the nature of this book, when I 
find it among the books that composed the Jewish 
canon, sanctioned by Jesus, and declared by. Paul 



165 



to be inspired, instead of indulging my ingenuity in 
finding out an evil tendency in it, I set myself to 
discover its wisdom, and reap the instruction and 
comfort it is calculated to afford. In this view, I am 
persuaded, every humble Christian will find it a part 
of the treasures of infinite wisdom. The spirit 
that rejects it is a spirit of infidelity; and though 
this writer indulges it only in denying a few of the 
books of inspiration, it is the very same spirit that 
works in the complete infidel, in denying the whole 
word of God. To deny the whole volume of in- 
spiration, would not require the adoption of any ad- 
ditional principle ; it would only be necessary to 
act more fully up to it. 

If there is any thing in the books of Chronicles, 
the wisdom of which, humility, patience, and la- 
bour cannot discover, I am convinced that there is 
more good sense, as well as piety, in the observa- 
tion of Mr Scot, than in the fastidiousness of this 
writer : " If we could not understand, or get any 
1 benefit from certain portions of the Scriptures, it 
' would be more reasonable/' says that pious man, 
" to blame our own dulness, than, so much as in 
* thought, to censure them as useless/' This is a 
sentiment that breathes the true spirit of Christi- 
anity. 

Instead of finding cause of quarrel with the book 
of Esther, it is a part of Scripture that I have long 
admired as super-eminently abounding with proofs 
of a divine origin. I see in it the characteristic 
features of the divine wisdom, and every where 
discover traces of the finger of God. It is to me a 



166 



key to the history of the world, and an inspired 
commentary on the book of Providence. From 
this I am taught to see the hand of God in the mi- 
nutest concerns of my life, as well as in guiding the 
wheels of empire. When storms and darkness 
thicken over my head, from the book of Esther I 
am led to hope that they may break around me in 
blessings, or at least be dispersed without doing me 
injury. When this book is commended to me by 
the canon approved by Jesus, shall I give up to 
hypercritical fastidiousness, all the consolation 
which it affords me ? He that robs me of my 
money steals trash; but he that robs me of any part 
of the word of God, takes from me what all the 
earth cannot replace. Learned men, in the want- 
onness of their genius, may think it a very harmless 
thing to question our title to some parts of the do- 
mains left us by our Lord. In the sport of criti- 
cism, they may give away tracts of Scripture terri- 
tory with much less concern than an amateur 
would the picture assigned to an admired artist, or 
than a scholar would give up an ode of Horace. 
But a Christian, acting fully in the spirit of Chris- 
tianity, will cling to every word of the Holy Book, 
and guard it as a miser guards his treasures. The 
Scriptures are the title-deeds of his estate ; and he 
will, with the utmost care, preserve every line and 
every word from erasure. 

The omission complained of in the Book of Es- 
ther, is quite analogous to the providence of God 
which it illustrates. It is in the characteristic style 
of Divine Wisdom. Divine Providence rules all 



167 



the events of this world ; but he guides the universe 
with an unseen hand. Though his friends see his 
hand in every thing, his enemies see him not at all. 
In all the operations of his wisdom and power, they 
perceive nothingbut chance and confusion. Fortune 
is the goddess which they put in the place of the God 
of Providence. They are like children beholding 
the movements of puppets. The hand behind the 
curtain is never suspected. A leaf cannot move on 
a branch — no living creature can draw breath, 
without the operation of the divine hand ; yet are 
the most wonderful interpositions of his providence 
unnoticed by the wisdom of this world. God is 
hidden from the eyes of men, even while he is 
every where at work before their face. Is there 
any need for a voice from heaven to proclaim, on 
every occasion, " It is God that performs this ?" 
Is it not self-evident to every creature truly wise ? 
Are not all inexcusable who do not acknowledge 
his over-ruling power ? Must a herald proclaim 
him the author of his works, before men are blame- 
able in ascribing them to another cause ? Is he so 
bad a painter that the style of his works is not 
characteristic of their author ? Is he so little 
known in the world, that witnesses must be brought 
into court to prove his hand-writing ? If there is 
a human creature, possessed of all the faculties of 
man, who is unacquainted with the hand-writing of 
God, he is a guilty creature. Innumerable ex- 
amples of it have, from his infancy, been before his 
eyes. And why should not the Book of Esther be 
in the style of the hand-writing of that Providence, 



168 



whose wonders it exhibits ? Both are anonymous 
letters; but they are letters which heaven and 
earth could not counterfeit The hand-writing 
proves its author. To ascribe the Book of Esther 
to a wicked Jew, is as void of foundation, as to as- 
cribe the works of Providence to the devil. 

Had we written the book of Esther, no doubt 
our wisdom would have expressed our whole creed, 
guarded at all points by logical definition, to cut 
off pretence for evasion. The feeblest pin would 
have afforded a hold for all the weight of our or- 
thodoxy. But it is not so with the wisdom of 
God. The troth, in all its bearings, is not exhi- 
bited in any single passage in the Bible. To have 
a complete view of it, we must bring together pas- 
sages scattered throughout the whole Scriptures. 
The Book of Esther is designed for a particular 
purpose ; it is sufficient that it serves that purpose. 
As a part of the sacred volume, it is admirably in- 
structive ; it never was designed to stand alone. 
The preaching of Jesus himself could not stand 
the test to which this writer subjects the Book of 
Esther. He did not, in every address, bring for- 
ward the doctrine of salvation. The book of Es- 
ther teaches the truth as far as it goes; it is no de- 
gradation to it that it leaves the most important 
thing to be gathered by inference. Even by itself, 
its meaning cannot be innocently mistaken ; but, in 
conjunction with the other books of Scripture, all 
appearance of cover is removed. Is it not sufficient 
if the whole Scriptures contain the whole will of 
God ? Shall we arrogantly prescribe to him what 



169 



is requisite in every part? While the way of salva- 
tion is dispersed in multitudes of places through the. 
Bible, many passages might be collected in which 
there is nothing about it. 

I implore such writers to reflect on the awful na- 
ture of their sentiments. If this book is inspired, 
and, if Dr Smith's explanation of 2 Timothy iii. 16 
be correct, inspired it must be, how highly auda- 
cious is it to ascribe it to some wicked Jew ! If, 
in their judgment, it contains evidence of being 
the work of a wicked author, do they not find that 
wickedness in God, should the book be finally ac- 
knowledged by God ? Is there hazard here ? Is 
not rashness on such a point the extravagance of 
madness ? If the work is charged as a wicked 
work, and God is found to be its author, is not 
God charged with its wickedness ? I admit that 
the writer does not intentionally make such acharge. 
But does this clear him? If so, the Jews will be 
innocent in rejecting the gospel ; for they conceive 
that it led to licentiousness. If so, the modern re- 
vilers of salvation, by the grace of God through 
Jesus Christ, will all stand without blame ; for 
they oppose it out of zeal for the interests of good 
works. Has the man of sin opposed the truth, as 
being the doctrine of Christ, and the true gospel ? 
Does he not view the gospel of the grace of God 
as the heresy of wicked men, seduced by the de- 
vil ? Yet he is the son of perdition, the smoke of 
whose torment ascendeth for ever and ever. And 
19 it a light thing upon the strength of rasli objec- 
tions, to affront the Spirit of truth, and ascribe, 



170 



though ignorantly, any part of the word of God to 
wicked men ? If this charge is unfounded, even 
though not intended as against God, it argues dis- 
affection to the divine wisdom. What is unbelief 
but disaffection to the wisdom of God ? Men re- 
ject the gospel, because, indulging their own wis- 
dom, the wisdom of God appears foolishness to 
them. Instead of submitting to the plan of divine 
wisdom, when communicated to them, they take on 
them to question its merits; and finding it alto- 
gether opposed to their own views, they reject it 
as an imposture, or explain it in conformity with 
the wisdom of man. Had the gospel appeared the 
wisdom of God, in the estimation of the princes of 
this world, they would not have crucified the Lord 
of glory. They did this in ignorance, — because 
the wisdom of God is foolishness to the world ; 
but this ignorance, as it was enmity against the 
wisdom of God, which nothing but atheistical pride 
of human wisdom could have kept them from dis- 
cerning, was culpable in the highest degree. This 
ignorance was damnation. Now, if the book of 
Esther is really written in the wisdom of God, it 
will be no defence for this writer, that it is not in 
the style of human wisdom. God has presented it 
to him as his own work, by having it inserted in 
the canon sanctioned by Christ, and attested as in- 
spired by Paul. If, in the arrogance of his own 
wisdom, he presumes to see defects in it, notwith- 
standing such attestation, it is at his peril he rejects 
it. He indulges the very same spirit that induces 
all unbelievers to reject the gospel. Do 1 then say, 



171 



that to deny the inspiration of this book is damna- 
tion ? No— I say it is not damnation ; because no 
ignorance or opposition to the divine wisdom is 
damnation, but the ignorance of one point — the ig- 
norance of the wisdom of God in the plan of salva- 
tion. This ignorance is declared by God to be 
damnation. But ignorance of every other part of 
the divine wisdom is not damnation ; because 
it is declared that he that believeth the gospel 
shall be saved. It could not be a truth to which 
there is no exception, that the belief of the gospel 
is salvation, if any ignorance consistent with the 
knowledge of this one point, was damnation. But 
while I rejoice in this fact so comforting to us all, 
for none of us are without our errors and ignorance, 
I think it right to keep it constantly before my own 
mind, and that of all my brethren, that every in- 
stance of disaffection to the divine wisdom is highly 
criminal. It is this that has introduced all the cor- 
ruptions of the gospel ; it is this that has changed 
all the ordinances of God, and introduced into no- 
minal Christianity all the pomp and ceremony of 
pagan Rome. I am convinced that many in the 
Church of Rome, with all the ignorance of the di- 
vine wisdom that keeps them there, may have so 
much knowledge of the wisdom of God in the plan 
of salvation, as will wash them in the blood of Christ, 
and at last present them blameless before his throne. 
But while I think so, I do not on that account 
think their ignorance innocent, nor cease to cry to 
them in the words of the Lord, " Come out of her, 
' my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, 



172 



f and that ye receive not of her plagues." In like 
manner do I judge of the denial of the inspiration 
of the book of Esther, on the considerations of its 
supposed defects. It appears to me exceedingly 
sinful, without the alleviating circumstances of pre- 
judice, education, &c. that weigh on the Roman 
Catholic. Were the objection a thousand times 
more plausible than it is, prudence, I think, should 
dictate very great caution in condemning. Had 
the objection struck me as it did the writer of the 
article, instead of rashly yielding to it, my reason 
teaches me, that as the book is authenticated by 
God, I should have sought by reading and prayer, 
to see the divine wisdom of that which in my wis- 
dom did not appear such. Instead of boldly con- 
cluding from first sight, that this was evidence of a 
wicked author, I would have taken it for granted, 
that there was wisdom in it, though I could not 
discern that wisdom. In this way, I have no doubt, 
I would have come to see the wisdom of that which 
might at first strike me as folly. As I am man, 
and not God, I never pretend to judge for God. 
All bis ways, I take it for granted, are wise, and 
my wisdom is to search for the traces of that wis- 
dom. In sitting down to a human writing, I try 
every thing with the utmost circumspection and 
jealousy. In re-perusing my own writings, I 
do the same, because to err is human. But when 
I sit down to the Scriptures, it is not with the eye 
of a critic to find faults, nor as a judge to put them 
on their trial at the bar of my own wisdom. As I 
have the fullest evidence that they are the word 



173 



of God, I read to learn, — I read to explore 
the divine wisdom, — I read to discover what may 
lie hid from human wisdom. As the Scriptures are 
the word of God, I expect such a fulness and per- 
fection in them, that I may dig up treasures that 
may have yet escaped the eye of human wisdom. 
Having found the key of the divine wisdom in the 
Scriptures, I apply it every where ; and the mark- 
ed characteristics of that wisdom, are to rae. the 
best commentary on the book of God, both of 
Scripture and providence. It is in this way, that 
the thing that has stumbled this writer, has long 
appeared to me as a certain evidence of the divine 
origin of the book of Esther. Whether his scep- 
ticism, or ray faith, is -more suitable to human 
weakness, I might leave to the determination of 
every humble Christian. At all events, I triumph 
in the appeal to the throne of the eternal judge, 
ior the decision of this controversy. 

1 request the writer's attention to another con- 
sequence of the sentiment advanced by him on the 
subject of the inspiration of the objected books. 
He lays a foundation for infidelity, with respect to 
the denial of the inspired books, to any extent 
that a person may choose to build on it. He is 
himseli displeased only with a few books ; but if 
his principles are admitted, 1 do not know how any 
book can be retained. The authority of the canon, 
with all its sanctions, he does not admit as para- 
mount; and the non-conformity of its matter to his 
own views, is allowed as sufficient to discredit the 
title of a book to the character of inspiration. How 



174 



then can any book of Scripture stand such an or- 
deal ? A thousand things in the epistles may more 
plausibly be objected to, than the defect complain- 
ed of in the book of Esther. So far from the ab- 
sence of the name God, proving irresistibly that 
none but a wicked Jew could have written that 
book, it appears to me, on the contrary, that had a 
wicked Jew really been the author, it would have 
possessed the perfection, the want of which the 
writer so much regrets. How could either the ho- 
nour, or the safety of the Jewish people, or any 
single Jew, be hazarded by the avowal, that the 
governor of the universe was their protector and 
avenger? But at all events, in whatever way hu- 
man wisdom would decide on this question, to deny 
the inspiration of a book so highly sanctioned on 
the ground of speculations of this kind, appears 
to me to be the very wantonness of sceptical folly. 
Such evidence as that on which this w 7 riter rests, 
would not be sufficient to displace from his works 
any of the orations usually ascribed to Demos- 
thenes. To reject the book of Esther on such evi- 
dence, is the very madness of criticism. Admit 
such principles, and who shall defend the inspira- 
tion of Paul against the Arians and Socinians ? 
Who shall be able to defend, in the writings of 
that Apostle, the inspiration of those deep things of 
God, that appear as hard sayings to the wisdom of 
ibis world? Every man may innocently reject 
whatever is displeasing to his own mind. In this 
way our Bible will not contain a single page whose 



175 



Aspiration will be universally admitted. All will 
be matter of human opinion. 

Nor will the writer be able to keep the exact 
station which he has now chosen. He will either 
be obliged to come back to us, or the infidel will 
force him nearer to himself. Let him not vainly 
imagine, that by throwing the objected books over- 
board, he will be able to keep the ship from sink- 
ing, and save the rest. When he offers to surren- 
der these books to the deist, if he knows his busi- 
ness, he will not take them from him. He may 
reply, these books that you give up to me, are au- 
thenticated by him you call your Master, and by him 
you denominate the great Apostle of the Gentiles. 
You must acknowledge them as yours, or you must 
surrender at discretion, and give me up all the writ- 
ings of Paul, and all the authority of Jesus. If 
the one falls, the other will fall of course. Who 
can depend on Jesus, if he has acknowledged the 
authority of a book, which you and I have found 
to be the writing of a wicked Jew ? What credit 
can be given to Paul, if he has so egregiously erred 
about these books ? 

What an unholy cause are these writers engaged in! 
They are labouring as fervently in lowering the char- 
acter of the word of God,as the Neologians are labour- 
ing to sap the foundations of Christianity, under a mask 
of submission to its authority. Dr Smith struggles 
hard to degrade the inspiration of the Scriptures; 
and both he and the Ecclectic Review have labour- 
ed to unsettle the canon. Both have adopted prin- 
ciples which tend to confusion ; and to the sub- 



176 



version of the Scriptures as the Book of God. Dr 
Smith has denied the verbal inspiration of the 
Bible, and every kind of inspiration to all the pas- 
sages that any one may choose to consider as not 
being of a religious or moral nature ; and the Ec- 
clectic Review has rejected whole books of Scrip- 
ture, on principles that will condemn every book in 
the canon. Better, much better for a christian, 
that he had not so much learning as to write his 
own name, than to display the abilities of Newton, 
in degrading the word of God. Grotius is said to 
have exclaimed on his death-bed : lieu vitam pre- 
didi ojficiose nihil agendo : Alas ! I have spent 
my life in laboriously doing nothing. But many 
learned Christians not only waste their time in la- 
borious triffles, but in ignorantly fighting against 
God. How much confusion has been brought on 
divine truth, by the waywardness even of the dis- 
ciples of the Lord ! How much obscurity has 
been introduced into the plainest subjects, by per- 
verted ingenuity ! How much error arises from 
not reading the Scriptures with the disposition of 
little children ! When will Christians learn to re- 
nounce their own wisdom ! When will they cease 
to conform the Scriptures to their own views ! 
W T hen will learned Christians seek the approbation 
of God in all their labours, regardless of the smiles 
and of the frowns of a world that lieth in the wick- 
ed one ! When will truth be esteemed the most 
precious of all possessions ! " Thy testimonies 
' have I taken as an heritage for ever;" says the 
Psalmist, " for they are the rejoicing of my heart." 



177 



APPENDIX 

TO 

REMARKS 

ON 

DR PYE SMITHES THEORY OF INSPIRATION. 



Dr Pye Smith, in a second edition of his work on 
the Messiah, has endeavoured, from the import of 
the word Xoyaq, to silence some of the testimonies 
for verbal inspiration. 94 Much stress/' says he, 
" has been laid on the use of the expressions men- 
1 tioned before, (p. 45.) where speaking, saying, 

* and the like, are ascribed to the Holy Spirit by 
6 the mouth of his servants; and such passages as 
' these, 1 I will put my words in his mouth.' Deut. 
' xviii. IS. '1 have given unto them the words 
' ' which thou gavest me,' John xvii. 8. ' We 
1 ' speak, not in the words which man's wisdom 
' 1 teacheth, but in those which the Holy Spirit 

• ' teacheth,' 1 Cor. ii. 13. Those who use this 
i argument are probably not acquainted with the 
1 Scriptural meanings of 13H and Aoyo?, especially 
1 the plural forms, and the idioms connected with 
1 them ; that they denote, not vocables, or single 

M 



178 



4 words, but combined speech, the matter conveyed 
e in the tenor and total of an oral or written address, 
' sermones, la parole." vol. 1. p. 97. The peculiari- 
ty here adverted to, as far as it is well founded, can 
be news to no classical scholar. And it is equally 
obvious to the smallest degree of critical discern- 
ment, that this fact cannot bear the inference 
which Dr Smith draws from it. Even admitting 
that in and Xoyog never did refer to single terms, 
the conclusion is not warranted. If sentences, ex- 
pressions, or combined speech, are ascribed to 
God, the single words must be his also, for it is of 
these the combination is composed. The whole 
cannot be God's, if the parts separately are not his. 
Dr Smith's criticism is as absurd, as if one should 
say, that when an officer is said to be the colonel 
of such a regiment, it does not import that he is the 
colonel of the soldiers in that regiment, because the 
word regiment denotes a body of men united. An 
oration of Demosthenes is called Aoyo?. But if an 
oration as a whole is his, the words considered se- 
parately, are his also. We do not argue that it 
signifies single terms as distinguished from terms 
combined in speech ; but that signifying terms com- 
bined in speech, it includes single terms. If God 
is the author of the terms as a combination, he is 
the author of them considered singly. What we 
contend for is, that Acyos, whether referring to one 
word, or to a number in combination, refers to ex- 
pression, and that in this respect it is as definite as 
^ot. itself. Xoyog when used distinctively, implies 
expression with respect to a number of words com- 



179 



bined ; expression with respect to one word. 

But though A*ya$ has this distinctive meaning, it is 
not fact that either it or the Hebrew word"Q1, i^ 
never used with respect to single w T ords. Many 
examples might be produced to prove the contrary. 
Joshua viii. 34, 35, " And afterwards he read all 
' the words of the law, the blessings and cursings, 
' according to all that is written in the book of the 
' law. There was not a word of all that Moses 
1 commanded, which Joshua read not before all the 
' congregation of Israel."' 

Here the term word must signify a single word, 
yet the Hebrew is for which the Septuagint 

uses £Kpx> 

Isaiah xxxvi. 21. " But they held their peace, 
' and answered him not a word." Here the term 
word applies to a single word, yet the Hebrew has 
121, and the Greek Xoyo$. 

Psalm cxxxix. 4. u For there is not a word in 
1 my tongue, but, lo, O Lord, thou knowest it alto- 
' gether." Here the Hebrew uses nb?3, and the 
Greek Aoya?. 

Isaiah xxix. 21. " That make a man an offender 
' for a word." Here there can be no doubt, that a 
single word is meant, yet we have in the Hebrew 
and in the Greek, the terms in question. 

Rev. xxii. 22. " If any man shall take away from 
' the words of the book of this prophecy/' Here the 
original has Xoyo$, yet it must refer to single terms. 

But in this criticism, Dr Smith artfully substi- 
tutes the words, " The matter conveyed," &c. as 
synonymous with the words " combined speech" 



180 



Now the matter conveyed in a speech is not tbe speech 
that conveys that matter. The speech contains both 
the words and the matter, but not the matter with- 
out the words, nor distinguished from the words. 
Though, therefore, Xoyog signifies combined speech, a 
sentence, an oration, a treatise, &c. yet it never sig- 
nifies the matter of that sentence, oration* treatise, &c. 
without the words, or distinct from the words. It 
includes the matter, because the words express the 
matter. It is admitted, that both the Hebrew word 
and the Greek have an acceptation, without any 
reference to expression ; but in that acceptation it 
is evident, they cannot be used in the passages in 
question. In such instances, they do not denote 
the meaning or matter of a speech, more than the 
words of a speech. They do not, indeed, refer to 
speech in any point of view. Let us now take a 
look at the examples which he alleges as the sup- 
port of this criticism. " Of this they might dis- 
6 cover evidence, if they would examine, in the He- 
c brew and Greek texts, the following passages, 
' which are but a specimen of a very numerous body. 
'Exod. xviii. 16, 19,22, 26; xix. 6—9; 2 Sam, 
* xi. 18; Ps. cv. 27; Jer. L 1 ; Amosi. 1 ; 1 Chron, 
' xxix. 29; Mark i. 45; John iv. 37, 39 ; Acts i. I ; 
< xv. 32; xx. 7; 1 Cor. i. 17, 18; ii. 1, 4; xv. 2," 
■ &c. &c." Let us examine them as they stand, and 
we shall see that they give no testimony that will 
yield any support to Dr Smith's criticism. Exod. 
xviii. 16, 19, 22, 26. When they have a matter 
6 they come unto me," — Ct bring the causes unto 
' God," — " every great matter they shall bring unto 



181 



* thee," — w the hard causes they brought unto 
i Moses." Here the Hebrew word TF% is used to 
denote matter, thing, cause. But this does not 
conform to either part of the definition of the word 
given by Dr Smith. This is not combined speech, 
nor is it ** the matter conveyed in the tenor and 

• total of an oral or written address." It is matter, 
thing, cause, without respect to speech. It is on- 
ly a play upon the sound of the word matter. It 
makes matter as an abstract word, coincide with 
matter, as importing meaning, which are as differ- 
ent in their significations as any two words in the 
language. And it is most strange that Dr Smith 
has not observed, that in this acceptation of the 
Hebrew term, the Septuagint has used gnp*, as well 
as Xoyo$, as a translation. In verse 16, the Greek 
is ctfliXoyix, a controversy ; in verse 19, the Greek 
is Aoyoj; and in verse 22, 2b', gtpx is used. Indeed 
ypct is the term used for thing, in Luke ii. lo. In 
this acceptation then, ^ux and teyoq are equally 
used. In the sense of combined speech, both eyux 
and 6Td$, are used as well as teyos, though when 
used distinctively, each has its peculiar province. 
Aoye? has a greater variety of significations than any 
of its synonyms. There is no doubt, but there is 
a connection between the remotest of these and the 
original idea; and it is the business of the philoso- 
phical linguist to trace this connection. But the 
fact is all we are concerned with, that it has the 
meaning of matter, cause, thing, office, as well as 
the corresponding Hebrew term, without any re- 
ference to speech at all. In this, however, gufta 



182 



lias suffered the same extension. Indeed, the ori- 
gin of this use is not difficult to discover. What 
can be more obvious, than a metonymy of the ex- 
pression for the thing expressed, and in progress, 
the passing of the metonymical use into proper sig- 
nification, without any reference to expression? 
Why, 1 ask, has Dr Smith grounded an argument 
upon this use of Aeyo<r, which might as well be 
grounded on g»^#, the very term which distinct- 
ly denotes words as single terms? Might not an- 
other as reasonably say, " signifies matter, 
'thing, &c. therefore it cannot be understood of 
* single words/' This definition, then, is inconsis- 
tent with itself, and the examples are inconsistent 
with both parts of it. 

In Exodus xix. 6. 9, the Hebrew word is used 
in its usual meaning as denoting words, and is ren- 
dered by the Septuagint both by \oyog and gijp«. 
Moses laid before the people the very words of 
the Lord, and to denote these words the LXX use 
the two Greek words indifferently. 

2 Sam. xi. 18. " Then Joab sent and told 
' David, all the things concerning the war." Here 
the term in the original corresponding to things, 
may either be taken as signifying things, without 
any reference to words, or the ivords of the war, 
may be words giving an account of the war — words 
in the strict sense. 

Psalm cv, 27. They shewed the words of his 
signs, that is, they used the words which God put 
into their mouth, by which the signs were perform- 



183 



ed. But in whatever way this phraseology is ex- 
plained, it can have no bearing on the dispute. 

Jer. i. J. " The words of Jeremiah, 5 ' &c. 
And what else are they than words ? These words 
contained the things that he spoke. The LXX 
translate it, u The word of God that came upon 
' Jeremiah/' &c. using; the word gypx, and in the 
next verse using Xoyog for the same thing. 

Amos i. L " The words of Amos." And the 
words of Amos they are, notwithstanding it is said 
that he saw them. This phraseology is to be un- 
derstood on the same principle as that which speaks 
of seeing a voice. There was a vision ; something 
was seen, which uttered things that were heard. 
Would it be more intelligible to substitute for the 
"words of Amos," the combined speeches of Amos, 
or " the matter conveyed in the tenor and total of 
'the oral or written address, sermones, la parole of 
' Amos?" I think it would need as good glasses to 
see all this, as to see the words of the prophet. 

Mark i. 45. " Blaze abroad the matter." 
Though the passage might be translated the report, 
that is, the report of the miracle, yet I have no ob- 
jection to the common version, which is quite in ac- 
cordance with what I have already advanced. But 
it is matter, or thing, without reference to words. 
It is not meaning contra-distinguished from words. 
It is not matter conveyed in the tenor and total of 
a written or oral address. 

John iv. 37, 39. " And herein is that saying 
* true," — " The saying of the woman." Very 
good proof, if Dr Smith had the misfortune to con- 



184 



tend with any so uninformed as to assert that 
Adyd$ always signifies a single term, and not a 
number of terms in combination. He does not, 
however, find in us critics of this stamp. Xoyt>$ 
we contend may signify one word, or a whole 
treatise. Is it of such a thing as this that Dr 
Smith presumes to say, that those who alleged an 
argument from the phraseology which he quotes^ 
are probably unacquainted? Who is unacquainted 
with the fact that koyog has a multiplicity of 
meanings ? None who are able to look for a word 
in a lexicon. But because the term Xoyo$ signifies 
a sentence, or saying, or report, &c. &c. cannot it 
signify words ? Then the term word itself in Eng- 
lish, could not signify word, for it is used for say- 
ing, or report, as well as Xoyo$. Never was 
criticism more childish, with all its parade of He- 
brew and Greek. 

Acts Li. " The former treatise account" <fc. 
No man worth replying to, ever doubted such ac- 
ceptations of the term Aoy^. But does not the 
term in this acceptation apply to every word in 
the treatise ? If it was Luke's treatise, the words 
were the words of Luke ; a treatise comprehends 
both words and matter. Strange indeed, if this 
should be opposed to the idea of verbal inspira- 
tion ! 

Acts xv. 32. " Exhorted the brethren with 
' many words 9 or much discourse/' Did they ex- 
hort without words? The fact that Xcyog denotes 
combined speech, does not imply that words are 



185 



not included in it. If not. this has no bearing on 
the subject. 

Acts xx. 7. " Continued his discourse." Why 
waste time with such allegations as this? I sup- 
pose his discourse consisted in words, and though 
the term Xcyog applies to the whole, all the parts 
are necessarily included in the whole. 

1 Cor. i. 17. " Not with wisdom of words," or 
as in the margin, u of speech." Is it not the ex- 
pression here that is directly referred to ? 1 Cor. 
i. 18. " The preaching of the cross." This might 
be alleged to shew, that the term Xoyog, had other 
meanings, as well as that in which it denotes 
words, a thing; that no man ever thought of calling 
in question. But does this say, that the term, 
when it signifies words, either singly or combined, 
cannot refer to expression ? 

In 1 Cor. ii. 1 — 4. Xoyo$ does not indeed de- 
note a single word, but speech. But this is nothing 
to the purpose of Dr Smith. Speech is made up 
of single words, and the words of a speech are the 
words of the author of the speech. It would be 
absurd to say, that a speech was inspired, but that 
the words were not inspired. Is it not of expres- 
sion, as distinguished from the thing expressed, that 
the apostle is here speaking ? 

In 1 Cor. xv. 2. The word is variously explain- 
ed, but in no sense can it favour Dr Smith. Our 
translation is substantially good, though it overlooks 
something expressed in the original, which, indeed, 
can hardly be exactly given in an English version. 
tivi Aoy» in this place would, I think, be exactly 



186 



rendered by qua ratione, referring both to the doc- 
trine preached, and the orderly connection and de- 
pendence of the parts of that doctrine. That both 
the ideas are included, is evident from the illustra- 
tion which the Apostle himself gives of the expres- 
sion, in the following verses. He states the differ- 
ent parts of his doctrine, and the order in which 
they are taught. " If ye remember how I preach- 
' ed the gospel to you/' might not be far from ex- 
pressing the ideas of the original. But how can 
this passage, in any sense of which it is capable, 
tend to prove that Xoyog, when applied to the Scrip- 
tures, cannot mean the expression as distinguished 
from the meaning? Is there any word perfectly 
univocal? Did any one ever suppose, that toyog 
had not a vast variety of meanings? Does Dr 
Smith mean to assert, that the meaning which it 
has here, it must have in these passages which are 
the subjects of dispute? He refers us to a number 
of examples in which he supposes we will find 
some wonderful discovery, of which till the time of 
his writing, we were not at all aware. That dis- 
covery, however, is known to any school-boy, as 
soon as he is able to trace the words of his lexicon. 
And worst of all, it has nothing to do with the sub- 
ject. But I invite the reader especially to attend 
to the manner in which Dr Smith endeavours to 
neutralize the testimony of 1 Cor. ii. 13. This 
passage is so clear, that he is obliged to confess 
that it refers to expression, but by resolving ex- 
pression into expressions, style, manner, he con- 
trives to turn the reader's attention to the latter as 



187 



the only thing meant in the Apostle's assertion, 
" The passage J Cor. ii. 13," says he, " evidently 
i refers to the expressions, style, and manner in which 
' the Apostle taught the truths of the gospel; and it 

* declares that he did not use splendid eloquence and 
•' oratorical arts, nor resort to any other kind of al- 
' lurement to captivate hearers. (iv Xoyw KoXxxucc$, 
6 lThess.ii.5. — icAxvreis foyoi;, 2 Pet. ii. 3;) but that 
' he delivered his heavenly message in simplicity of 
' diction, as taught and inspired by the Holy Spirit, 

* (tlnv uctliKoi$ nvsvpetlma o-vyxgivcflts adapting spiri- 

* ritual (expressions) to spiritual subjects." Now, 
what can be fairer in appearance than this, if it is 
read without a critical eye ? What can we de- 
mand more than is here admitted? And is not 
style the principle thing to which the Apostle re- 
fers? But there is management here that perverts 
the testimony of God. The art by which the wri- 
ter quashes the evidence here is, by substituting 
something implied in what is said, for the thing that 
is actually said. It is of expression solely that the 
Apostle speaks. Style, manner, &c. are undoubt- 
edly implied in this, but they are not the thing of 
which the assertion is made. Splendid eloquence and 
oratorical arts are unquestionably included in the de- 
nial, but they are not the thing of which the denial 
is made. They are included, because expression 
includes them ; but it is of expression that the 
assertion is made. The apostle's words do not di- 
rectly declare that he did not use splendid eloquence 
and oratorical arts. But this is one of the things 
implied in the declaration. The thing declared is, 



188 



that the apostle expressed divine truth, not in words 
taught by human wisdom, but in words taught by 
the Holy Spirit, The assertion then is made of 
the expression or words directly, and respects style 
only as it is included in expression. The thing that 
he denies is not the using of flattery and simula- 
tion, according to 1 Thess. ii. 5., 2 Pet. ii. 3., but 
that he spoke the truths of the Gospel in words 
taught by the wisdom of man. That he did not 
use flattery and simulation is no doubt implied in 
this. What he asserts, is not " that he delivered 
6 his heavenly message in simplicity of diction/' 
though this is implied in what he does assert ; but 
that he delivered his heavenly message in heaven- 
ly words. The author then has uncorked the 
heavenly liquor, and presents it to us in a state 
quite evaporated and vapid. He has besides put an 
infusion into it calculated to deceive the eye and 
the taste. Here is a passage then, Dr Smith, that 
your instruments of torture cannot silence, nor force 
to prevaricate. It speaks of words, and whether 
these be considered as single terms, or expression 
as combined speech, it is expression directly dis- 
tinguished from meaning. The Holy Ghost most 
plainly declares, that the truths of the Gospel were 
taught by the apostles in his own words. He 
speaks both of the matter and of the expression in 
this passage, and directly ascribes to the Holy Spi- 
rit the latter as distinguished from the former. No 
words could more expressly assert verbal inspira- 
tion. It is as clear that the words are ascribed to 
the Holy Spirit, as that the things are ascribed to 



189 



him. Dr Smith, it is no easy thing to fight against 
the word of God. When you may think that you 
have stoned it to death, it will with Paul quickly 
stand upon its feet and testify against you as loudly 
as ever. You have done your utmost to murder 
this passage, but it rises up in judgment against you, 
and proclaims that the apostles spoke the things of 
the Spirit in the words of the Spirit. u Which 

' THINGS ALSO WE SPEAK, NOT IN THE WORDS 

' which man's wisdom teacheth, but which 
c the Holy Ghost teacheth/ Can you look to 
the judgment seat of Christ, and deny that this 
asserts verbal inspiration? If you can, I do not 
envy you your conscience or your perspicacity. 

With respect to the words TlnvuccltKng 
Jlnv ftaUxm <rvyx,£ivovltg I am well enough pleased with 
the common version, in this instance, as in most 
others. But whatever is right, right Dr Smith's 
version cannot be, " adapting spiritual (expressions) 
' to spiritual subjects." 1. When an adjective is 
thus exhibited without its substantive, the substan- 
tive must be of the most general nature, and so 
obvious as to occasion no question as to what it is. 
Things, and neither express ion s nor subjects, is the 
proper substantive. 2. It is necessary that the 
same substantive should be supplied to both words. 
Expressions cannot be supplied to the one, and 
subjects to the other. Let Dr Smith produce me 
an undoubted instance of similar syntax, and I will 
withdraw this objection. 3. Were such syntax 
allowable, 1 would translate the passage thus : — 
Explaining or interpreting the things of the Spi- 



190 



rit, in the words of the Spirit, a. meaning both 
true and suited to the connection. But as 1 am 
convinced that such syntax is not warrantable, I 
will never attempt to force the word of God to 
support my views. 1 will not put one finger on 
the ark, though it should appear to be falling 
over a precipice. If God's word cannot support 
its own truths, let error prevail to the day of judg- 
ment. I stand quite at ease in defending my sen* 
timents on all subjects of divine truth. I consider 
it my duty to establish them, and to convince 
others, by an exhibition of evidence as clear as I 
am able. But [ will not forge proof were I as- 
sured of proselyting the world. It is not to please 
myself, that I adopt my views, and I cannot ex- 
pect to please God by defending his truth 
with falsehood. 4. With respect to the word 
<rvyx,£ivov%, we might as well open an English book 
at random, and take any word that should first oc- 
cur, as a translation, as take the word adapting. 
This is to make Scripture not to translate. Will 
Dr Smith be so good as to shew us where this 
word occurs in this acceptation ? 5. Were there 
no other objection, the phrase spiritual expressions 
appears to be unwarrantable. What is a spiritual 
expression, as distinguished from the things ex- 
pressed? Are there any expressions either as to 
words or phrases, of a spiritual nature abstracted 
from their meaning, or contra-distinguished from it ? 
? }s there any spiritual vocabulary, in any language? 
Did not the Apostles take the common words of 
the languages in which they spoke, and apply them 



191 



to express divine truth? If some fanatic had spo- 
ken about spiritual expressions, I would have 
known that he referred to the cant phrases of his 
party, but when T meet it in the writings of Dr 
Pye Smith, I cannot understand it. 

Upon the whole then, this criticism of Dr Smith, 
is liable to the following objections. 1. It con- 
founds two meanings of the word Xoyo$, that are 
entirely distinct —namely, combined speech, and 
matter, thing, cause, affair. The examples in 
which it has the former meaning, refer to expres- 
sion, as much as when it denotes single words ; and 
in the latter signification, it has no reference to 
speech at all, either in expression or meaning. 2. 
it supposes that Xoyog when it refers to speech, al- 
ways signifies combined speech, and never words, 
which is not fact. It may signify a treatise, but it 
may also signify a single word. 3. It plays on 
the sound of the word matter, and because it sig- 
nifies the abstract idea matter, it is made to signify 
matter, as the meaning of words, two ideas as dif- 
ferent as any two that can be conceived. The de- 
finition of tho words 121 and Aoyo?, uses the word 
matter, as signifying the meaning of an expression, 
the examples in which the words signify matter, 
all refer to matter in the abstract sense. The ex- 
amples of course fail in proving that for which they 
are alleged. 4. Had it even been successful as to 
the words ~Q1 and Xoyo$, this would not have af- 
fected the evidence arising from the phraseology, 
in which " speaking, saying, and the like, are as- 
' cribed to the Holy Spirit, by the mouth of his 



192 



e servants." Yet the criticism professes to apply 
to this. 5. The criticism supposes that the signi- 
fication of combined speech, is peculiar to the He- 
brew and the Greek, whereas it is just as fully ve- 
rified in English, as in either. The English term 
word, denotes a promise, a saying, a report, an ac- 
count, short statement, or even the whole Scrip- 
tures. We say, a man pledges his word, for he 
gives his promise, the word went abroad, for the 
report spread — I will ask you one word, for one 
question — In a word, for in short — the word of 
God, for the Bible, Sfc. Dr Smith's criticism 
then, is just as if a foreigner finding our term word 
as signifying, a saying, report, fyc. should venture 
to assert that it never signified single terms, but de- 
notes combined speech, the matter conveyed in the 
tenor and total of an oral or written address. Any 
school boy speaking the English language would 
laugh at such a criticism. Yet, in dead languages, 
it passes for the most profound erudition. 6. Lastly, 
I object to this criticism, because the author does 
not shew the bearing of the examples on the point 
at issue. Had he done so, he must have left him- 
self more open to assault, or have discovered his er- 
ror. But by a mere general reference to passages, 
he commits himself as little as possible ; and 
most readers will be more inclined to take the 
argument on trust, than have the labour of scruti- 
nizing the proof. By this means also, he may 
puzzle many whom he cannot satisfy. 

But it is an unhallowed task Dr Smith has 



193 

undertaken. It is a wretched thing to toil in en 
deavouring to shew how little the Scriptures deserve 
to be called the word of God. His first attempt 
has miserably failed ; and if it is only in this fee- 
ble way he intends to sustain our charge, it is a 
virtual confession of defeat. 



N * 



194 



STRICTURES 

ON 

DR DICK'S ESSAY ON THE INSPIRATION OF THE 
HOLY SCRIPTURES. 



I AM surprised to find in Dr Dick's Essay on the 
inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, a recognition of 
the mischievous distinctions which have laid a 
foundation for so much error and confusion on this 
plain subject. The author is not chargeable to 
the same extent with any of those whose works 1 
have been reviewing ; nor is it his design in any 
measure to lower the Scriptures in accommodation 
to Neological illumination. On the contrary, he 
rather adopts than vindicates the distinctions; and 
his admissions unfavourable to full verbal inspiration, 
are rather concessions that he cannot refuse, than 
assertions which it gives him pleasure to substan- 
tiate. Of course, though I acquit him of treason, 
1 cannot clear him of incompetency. I must arraign 
him as having surrendered a fortress which he 
might have held, had he made the best advantages 



195 



of the munitions of war, with which the royal arsenals 
were abundantly supplied. 

In some respects his w r ork is more dangerous to 
the unsuspecting Christian, than the worst of the 
kind; for while he substantially gives up proper in- 
spiration with respect io many things both as to 
matter and words, he speaks decidedly and strong- 
ly in reprehension of partial inspiration. The 
reader is led to think that no higher inspiration* can 
be thought of, than that vindicated by the author. 

On the nature and designations of the distinctions 
in inspiration, he quarrels with the common views ; 
but as long as he adopts them substantially, he is 
involved in the same error. He divides the kinds 
or degrees of inspiration into three classes. " 1. 
' There are many things in the Scriptures, which 
c the writers might have known, and probably did 
' know, by ordinary means." " 2. There are other 
c passages of Scripture, in composing which, the 
f minds of the writers must have been supernaturaliy 

* endowed with more than ordinary vigour." "3. 
' It is manifest, with respect to many passages of 
4 Scripture, that the subjects of which they treat, 
c must have been directly revealed to the writers." 
Let us attend to these in order. With respect to 
the first, he says, " As persons possessed of memo- 

* ry, judgment, and the other intellectual faculties 
' which are common to men, they were able to re- 
4 late events in which they had been concerned ; 
4 and to make such occasional reflections as were 
' suggested by particular subjects and occurrences." 
Now this is very true, but would such relations be 



196 



entitled to be called the word of God ? Could it 
be said, that they were given by inspiration of God ? 
Such relations might be true, but they are not in- 
spired. "In these cases," says the author, " no 
' supernatural influence was necessary to enlighten 
' and invigorate their minds ; it was only necessary 
6 that they should be infallibly preserved from 

* error/' Necessary for what? If it be necessary 
to produce a true narrative, this is just. But if the 
assertion is, that this is all that is necessary to en- 
title the narrative to be called the word of God, 
the thing must be strongly denied. A narrative 
that has nothing more than this cannot be said to 
be written by inspiration." " They did not need 
' a revelation/' says he, u to inform them of what 
' had passed before their eyes, nor to point out 
1 those inferences and moral maxims, which were 

* obvious to every attentive and considerate ob- 

* server." Very true, they did not indeed need 
any information with respect to what they knew. 
But in recording what they saw before their eyes, 
they must relate that only which is given them by 
the Holy Ghost, in the very words of the Holy 
Ghost, if their narrative is to be the word of God, 
and be characterized as given by inspiration. " Moses 
6 could tell," says he, "without a divine afflatus, 

* that on such a night the Israelites marched out 
' of Egypt, and at such a place they murmured 
6 before God ; and Solomon could remark, that " a 
' soft answer turneth away wrath, but grievous 
6 words stir up anger," &c. No doubt of it ; but if 
such facts in the narrative of Moses, have been told 



197 

without a divine afflatus, they are not a part of the f 
Scriptures; and if Solomon had nothing but Wsj^^^^^ 
own spirit in recording these moral maxims, "^ tff1 ^ 4 hU 
they may be true, but are not entitled to be re- ^/^^ <^T,% 
ceived as dictates of inspiration. Inspiration is-jf^Sft/V?- 
not necessary to constitute true information, but /^/ 7 ^ 
surely inspiration is necessary tor every thing that X^slolj 
is said to be inspired. Can a thing be inspired t/UC ^' t ^^. 
without inspiration ?* The author indeed after- w**^ 
wards asserts that such things require more than ^-^.j<^- 
superintendence. u In the passages of Scrip- 
g ture," says he, " which we are now considering, Jg^^J^ 
6 I conceive the writers to have been not merely ^./s ///-* 
' superintended, that they might commit no error, 
' but likewise to have been moved or excited by 
1 the Holy Ghost to record particular events, and^^p^' J ~ 
6 set down particular observations." So far this \%%^u \<^+r 
in the right path: but it does not go far enough. ^ c<< 
The Holy Ghost not only pointed out the particu- ^^1V1>;>^ 
lar events and observations, but if the account can^^^<^ 
be called inspired, the whole matter and language***^ 
must be God's. The writers of Scripture were not t^aM &*> > 
like amanuenses, as this author represents them, ,h ^^Z„ 
copying such things as have been selected for them Uacjh* - Jmk 
by their employer, but writing a* he dictated. ^£-^J~ 
There is indeed something in the case that cannot y/ - 
be represented by an amanuensis. The sacred wri- 
ters are rational instruments, through the operations 
of whose minds, God communicates his will. That 
the Almighty is able to speak his mind in this way, 
so that the same thing will be the writing of men 




198 



and the word of God, is quite possible. The mode 
in which it is done, it is not for us to inquire. 

Let us now glance at the second distinction, 
which is the invigorating of the memory and judg- 
ment. This is quite foreign to the question of the 
inspiration of the Scriptures. That some things m 
Scripture are not beyond the reach of the most or- 
dinary talents ; and that others could not have been 
produced by the highest order of created intellect, 
is very true. It is admitted also, that passages of 
the former class do not contain the evidence of their 
own inspiration ; and that the inspiration of the lat- 
ter is self-evident. Dr Dick produces many passa- 
ges that most clearly prove their inspiration by their 
sublimity; but that there are innumerable passages 
that do not prove their divine origin by any intrinsic 
elevation, no one will dispute. In such a view the 
distinction is good. But if it can be said of the 
passages of the latter class, that they are all given 
by inspiration of God, they must as truly be the 
work of God as the former. An uninspired man 
might have written the account of Ananias and Sap- 
phira ; but if it is Scripture, it is as much the work 
of God, as the description of the horse in the book 
of Job. It does not follow, that man, without in- 
spiration, wrote every thing in the Scriptures, which 
might have been written without inspiration. Some 
things in Milton might have been written by an or- 
dinary poet, but the meanest things in Paradise 
Lost are as much the work of Milton, as the most 
sublime flights of genius. As a matter of fact then, 
though a man's writings may display more or less 



199 



ability, they cannot be more or less his ; and if all 
Scripture is given by inspiration of God, no Scrip- 
ture can be more or less inspired than another, 
though different parts may contain in themselves 
more or less evidence of inspiration. It may be 
said that God has discovered himself in some pas- 
sages, and in others he has not discovered himself. 
But if all Scripture is given by inspiration, no pas- 
sage can be more or less inspired. A writer cannot 
be more or less the author of any part of a work, 
of every part of which he is said to be the author. 
If every part of Scripture which might have been 
written without inspiration, was actually written 
without inspiration, then such parts cannot be said 
to he inspired. On the other hand, if such parts 
were written by inspiration, they are on a level with 
every other part, as to inspiration. That this invi- 
goration of mind is no kind or degree of the inspira- 
tion of Scripture, is farther evident from the con- 
sideration, that the highest measures of it might 
have been given to the sacred writers, while not a 
sentence of their writing might have been inspired. 
To inspire a man with vigour of intellect, is quite a 
different thing from inspiring him with a communi- 
cation. Now, it is not the writers of Scriptures who 
are said to be inspired, but their writings are said 
to be inspired. " All Scripture is given by inspira- 
6 tion." A writer might indeed be inspired to write 
one thing, and he might write another without in- 
spiration. But this supposition is excluded as to 
the Scriptures, since the inspiration is asserted, not 
of the writers, but of the writings. A writer might 



200 



be inspired with genius and vigour, while every sen- 
tence written by him might be altogether uninspir- 
ed. A mere simpleton might become a Milton, or 
even might obtain such vigour as to enable him to 
equal the sublimity of the book of Job ; while not 
a sentence written by him could be called the word 
of God, or said to be given by inspiration of God. 
The invigorating of the minds of the writers of 
Scripture, therefore, is no kind or degree of the in- 
spiration of Scripture. Whatever parts of the Scrip- 
ture, therefore, are the production of men super- 
naturally invigorated, are not the word of God, are 
not inspired in any sense. Were God to enable a 
child to write a poem superior to the Iliad, would 
that poem be the book of God ? Could it be said 
to be written by the inspiration of God ? God had 
indeed qualified the child to write the book, but the 
book was still the production of the child, and could 
in no sense be called God's, any more than it could 
be said that God built the city of Glasgow. God 
has given to all men the talents which they possess. 
This, however, does not entitle their writings to be 
called his. And the case is quite the same in this 
respect, whether the talents be natural, or an ex- 
traordinary gift. 

With respect to the third distinction, it is true 
that while some things were fully known to the 
writers, other things could not be known but by 
immediate revelation. But this is not the question. 
The question is, whether things that could be known 
by natural means, were written without inspiration, 
or written by an inspiration different in kind from 



201 



that which records the things known only by reve- 
lation, or inferior in degree to it. It required no 
inspiration to teach a man what he knew ; but it 
required inspiration to write such an account of this 
as could be called the word of God, or be said to 
be written by inspiration. Any spectator at the 
tomb of Lazarus, was fit to say ** Jesus wept;" but 
if it can be said that this is Scripture, and if it is 
true, that " All Scripture is given by inspiration of 
* God;" it required as much inspiration to write, 
" Jesus wept," as to record what was said of the 
things, * which eyes had not seen, and ear had not 
' heard." An uninspired man might have said 
" Jesus wept!" But if the Evangelist said it 
without inspiration, it is not Scripture. As it is 
Scripture, and as all Scripture is given by inspira- 
tion of God, we are entitled to say that the Holy 
Ghost has said u Jesus wept," as well as to say, 
that the Holy Ghost has said, u Unto us a child is 
c born," &c. There is no more inspiration in the 
one account than there is in the other. The great 
mistake on this subject has arisen from considering 
inspiration as it respects the inspired person ; where- 
as the inspiration asserted 2 Tim. iii. 16, respects 
the things written. Now, if every part of a writing 
be given by inspiration, no part of it can be unin- 
spired, or differently inspired. In the relation of 
the most ordinary fact, God must have given every 
word of the account, else it cannot be said to be 
given by his inspiration. Every part of it is the 
word of God, and the inspiration that records the 
deepest mysteries cannot go beyond this. Inspira- 



202 



tion, as it respects the inspired persons, might have 
many degrees. Two might be inspired with the 
knowledge of some things equally, while one of 
them might be inspired with the knowledge of many 
things unrevealed to the other. But the question 
is not, whether one man may not have been more 
inspired than another, but whether one part of Scrip- 
ture is more inspired than another. The question 
is independent even of the truth or falsehood of the 
thing recorded by inspiration. The inspiration of 
the account of Satan's lie in deceiving our first pa- 
rents, is as great as that which records the promise, 
" The seed of the woman shall bruise the head of 
6 the serpent." 

It has arisen entirely from viewing inspiration as 
it respects the inspired persons, and not the things 
written by them, that it has appeared absurd to 
speak of inspiration with respect to what was known 
by natural means, and that could have been written 
without inspiration, or without revelation. To 
avoid this absurdity, some have denied inspiration 
with respect to some things, while others, with 
more reverence for the Scriptures, contrived such 
distinctions in the word, as to suit the various cases. 
But this difficulty does not at all present itself when 
the question is properly stated. It is not said that 
the sacred writers were inspired with knowledge 
which they previously possessed. But it is said 
their accounts of every thing recorded by them are 
given by inspiration ; and this is as true with respect 
to things previously known by them, as it is with 
respect to things communicated by revelation. 



203 



When they wrote what they knew, and could of 
themselves have expressed, both the matter and the 
words were God's, as much as when they wrote 
what they did not understand. There was no need 
to be inspired with the knowledge of what they 
knew, but every word in their account of this, may 
be by inspiration. 

The author himself reasons in this way, when 
dealing with those who maintain partial inspira- 
tion. " The notion of a partial inspiration, " says 
he, in a note, " seems to have arisen from the 
* want of distinct ideas on the subject. A false meaning 
' is annexed to the term ; and then it is easy to 
' shew that it cannot be applied to every part of 
4 Scripture. Inspiration is supposed to signify the 
i supernatural communication of knowledge to the 
1 mind ; and if this were the only sense of the 
' word, it would be true, that inspiration was not 
' necessary to enable men to relate what they 
1 knew by ordinary means." So far the observa- 
tion is just. But in what follows, the writer la- 
bours under a mistake, as great as that which he 
censures. " But if," says he, u we understand by 
' inspiration, the general assistance afforded to the 
% sacred writers according to the exigency of the 
6 case, and which supplied the want of knowledge, 
' or rendered it correct, or excited the person to 
' communicate it, and presided over his thoughts 
' and expressions, it may be affirmed, that simple 
6 historians were inspired as well as prophets," &c. 
If we understand by inspiration the general as~ 
sistance, fyc.f That is, if we understand inspiration 



204 



to moan what it does not mean, which in no in- 
stance it can be shewn to mean, and which it can- 
not mean ; if we suppose inspiration to mean any 
thing we choose to take out of it, then the case 
will have no difficulty. A general assistance is not 
inspiration* Did it not occur to the writer, that if 
inspiration is a general ass&$tK*B of the Holy Spirit, 
according to exigency, then it might be alleged by 
Socinians, that there is not in Scripture any need 
of that inspiration which he terms revelation. If 
the word, to serve his purpose, may be taken at so 
small an amount, what will oblige others, on any 
occasion, to take it at a higher value ? The just 
w T ay to answer those who labour under the above 
mistake, is not to lower the meaning of the word, 
but to shew that inspiration is asserted of every part 
of the Scriptures ; and not that the sacred waiters 
were inspired to know what they previously knew\ 
When an amanuensis writes an account of a death 
for a newspaper, he may write by dictation, as well 
as when he records a new theory. In like man- 
ner, when the sacred writers wrote an account of 
things with which they were fully acquainted, they 
wrote what the Spirit dictated, and in the words 
of the Spirit. 

Here then, I distinctly charge Dr Dick with 
surrendering a post to the enemy, that will enable 
him to make himself master of the field. This 
concession virtually gives up inspiration. A gene- 
ral assistance according to exigency, is not inspira- 
tion. I call on Dr Dick to shew what part of the 
instructions of his royal Master warrants him to 



205 



explain inspiration in so lax a sense. Is it option- 
al with us to attach any meaning that suits us, to 
the words of Scripture ? If a general assistance 
according to exigency is inspiration, then the 
Christian minister speaks by inspiration in the pul- 
pit ; then indeed, all Christians are inspired, for 
they have a promise of assistance according to exi- 
gency. What then, is Dr Dick's defence of inspi- 
ration, but an effort to retain the name, at the ex- 
pence of surrendering the thing. Dr Dick's Bible 
is not the word of God. Many parts of it are the 
work of man, with slight assistance from God. Is 
this the treatise that has so long been considered as 
a standard on the subject of inspiration ? Surely the 
Christian public are slightly acquainted with this 
important subject, else such a work could not meet 
their approbation. Can any Christian bear the 
idea, that the Bible has been composed by men, 
enjoying only a general assistance from God, ac- 
cording to exigency ? If this is true, then why 
may not others allege, that as in their opinion 
there is no exigency for any thing of the nature of 
inspiration in the strict sense of the word, there is 
nothing of it to be found in the Scriptures. A 
mere invigoration of the memory and judgment, 
was all that was necessary for men to produce the 
Bible. How easy a thing it is to mislead the public ! 
Let a Neologian declare, from a pulpit in Edin- 
burgh or Glasgow, that the Scriptures are not in- 
spired, and his blasphemy will shock all minds. 
But let an orthodox divine explain the word inspi- 
ration in a sense that equally denies the proper 



206 



idea contained in it, and it is likely he will be ad- 
mired as a deep theologian, who has happily ar- 
rived at the philosophy of an abstruse question, 
and an able vindicator of ike plenary inspiration of 
the Holy Scriptures. I call on Dr Dick to recon- 
sider his concessions on this all-important subject, 
and to cease to rob us of the book of God. He 
has taken from us God's book, and we cannot be 
content, though he has left a good book in its 
stead. 

68 They had the Bible. Hast thou ever heard 

Of such a book ? The author God himself,"— .Pollock, 

" From the preceding statement," says our au- 
thor, " it appears, that we do not apply the term 
€ inspiration, in the same sense to the whole of 
* Scripture." And why do you not, Dr Dick ? 
What authority have you for giving two senses to 
the word in the same occurrence ? A word may 
have two senses, or more, in different situations ; 
but this makes the passage, 2 Tim. iii. 16, give two 
senses to the word in the same place. With re- 
spect to some things, it must be revelation ; with re- 
spect to others, only assistance ; and an assistance 
infinitely varied according to circumstances. Was 
ever any thing more arbitrary than this ? The au- 
thor speaks of partial inspiration as implying " a 
' distinction perfectly arbitrary, having no founda- 
' tion on any thing said by the sacred writers them- 
' selves." But is it more arbitrary than his own 
distinction in this meaning of this word ? Can any 



207 



distinction have less foundation in any thing said 
by the sacred writers themselves ? Does he not 
give two senses to the same word in the same oc- 
currence? Does he not give it a meaning which 
it never has — a meaning perfectly inconsistent with 
its true import ? 

This mode of defending a doctrine by a double 
sense of a word in the same place, is the perfection 
of the skill of the Jesuitical defenders of Popery. 
When an antagonist unskilled in their mode of 
fighting, comes forward with a muster of texts, 
that he expects from their clearness will utterly 
confound and silence, if they do not convince, is 
himself confounded, when he finds that all his proofs 
are at once both admitted and denied by the help 
of this mode of explanation. To overturn all the 
self-righteous refuges of superstition, he thunders 
out the words — " The blood of Jesus Christ 
' cleanses from all sin," convinced that there is no 
way of escape. But with the greatest coolness it 
is promptly replied, " Very true; the Church of 
' Rome never taught any other doctrine than this. 
' The blood of Jesus Christ, and nothing but the 
* blood of Jesus Christ, does indeed cleanse from 
' all sin ; that is, Christ's blood takes away the eter- 
' nal punishment of our sins ; but there remains the 
' temporal punishment due to our sins, which we 
' must sutler for ourselves, either here or hereafter.'' 
And verily, if Dr Dick is justified in explaining the 
word inspiration in 2 Tim. iii. 16, in two senses, 



208 



the same liberty cannot be denied to the doctrines 
of Popery. 

But let us hear the writers reason for not giving 
this word the same sense with respect to all the in- 
spired writings. u Because/' says he, " the same 
6 degree of assistance was not necessary in the com- 
* position of every part of it." Then the Bible is 
not the book of God, but a book composed by man, 
with less or more of God's assistance, according as 
it was needed. If it be the word of God, if every 
part of it can justly be said to be given by inspira- 
tion of God, the whole must, in the same sense, 
be God's. There is no more authority to give two 
senses to the word inspiration in the same place, 
than there is to give two senses to the word God, 
and to say, that 2 Tim. iii. 16, asserts that some 
of the Scriptures are a revelation from the true God, 
and that other parts of them have been inspired by 
the god of this world. A book composed by God's 
assistance, could not be said to be given by inspi- 
ration of God. Dr Dick's Sermons, I hope, are 
compositions of this kind; but, I dare say, he does 
not pretend to inspiration. This is deeply erroneous 
language, Dr Dick. This is a solution of a diffi- 
culty as to inspiration, that destroys inspiration it- 
self. While it vindicates the name of inspiration, 
as applied to all the Scriptures ; it not only ex- 
pressly excludes much of them from proper inspi- 
ration, but lays a foundation for the denial of it as 
to all. The Bible is not a good book written by 
God's assistance ; but is God's own book, of which 
he is the very author, in as true a sense, as Dr 



209 



Dick is the author of this Essay on Inspiration, 
Much of it, indeed, respects ordinary matters; but 
even this is his as truly, and as fully, as the rest. 
Though the writers might have related many things 
in their own language without God, yet as a mat- 
ter of fact, they did not write any thing without 
him | for " all Scripture is given by inspiration of 
1 vjod." This is my polar star on this question. 
As lone as my eye is upon it, I do not fear to steer 
my course with safety. By losing sight of this, Dr 
Dick has got himself entangled in the theories of 
human wisdom, those hallucinations that promise a 
refuge to the unwary mariner, but hide rocks and 
quicksands under a vapoury surface. 

" In some parts," says Dr Dick, " if I may speak 
' so, there is more of God than in others." Doubt- 
less. But in what sense is this? A sense no- 
thing to the purpose of your argument, Dr Dick. 
There is certainly more of God, in those passages 
that reveal the divine character, than in those parts 
that speak of temporal things. But this is not the 
question. If God is the author of every part of the 
Bible, there is no part of it, of which he can be 
said to be more the author than another. But let 
us hear the writer's own illustration. " When a 
' prophet predicts the events of futurity, or an 
' apostle makes known the mysteries of redemption, 
1 it is God alone who speaks ; and -the voice or the 
4 pen of a man, is merely the instrument employed 
' for the communication of his will." Now this 
illustration is not at all warranted from the Scrip- 
tures. Man is a rational instrument in delivering 

o 



210 



the doctrines of salvation, and speaks in his own 
proper person, using his own arguments and illus- 
trations, as much as when he relates facts that oc- 
curred before his own eyes. Indeed, it is man that 
directly speaks, and it is only from Scripture testis 
mony that we learn that the doctrines, arguments, 
illustrations and language of the apostle, are the 
doctrines, arguments, illustrations and language of 
God. And " when Moses relates the miracles of 
' Kgypt, and the journeys of the Israelites in the 

* Wilderness, or the Evangelists relate the history 
' of Christ," they speak only what God gave 
them, or in the words which he gave them, though 
" they tell nothing but what they formerly knew."^ 
Dr Dick says, that " without the assistance of the 

* Spirit, they could not have told it so well." But this 
is giving up inspiration, and substituting assistance 
in its place. Without divine assistance a man can- 
not preach so well. But this is not inspiration. If, 
in such instances, it is lawful for Dr Dick to scoop, 
out the meaning of the word, and substitute a fancy 
of his own in its place, others may with equal pro- 
priety allege that such assistance was all that wa& 
necessary to record the documents of our salvation* 
If such assistance is inspiration as to some things, 
why may it not be inspiration as to others? Inspi- 
ration was not given merely to enable the sacred 
writers to tell their story well, but that their narra- 
tive might be the true word of God. Dr Dick's 
Bible, then, is quite a different book from mine. 
My Bible is God's book, which God himself ha& 
made ; yea, every part of which he has made. 



211 



How lamentable is it to find the writer of an essay 
long recognized as a standard on the subject of in- 
spiration, avowing that rnuch of his Bible is the 
work of man, assisted according to exigency by God ! 
Dr Dick has written an Essay on the Inspiration of 
the Scriptures, in which he virtually gives up the 
inspiration of much of them. To speak of plenary 
inspiration with such views, is to hold the word and 
to renounce the thing signified by it. 

" In some cases," says the Bishop of Lincoln, 
as quoted with approbation by this author, " in- 
• spiration only produced correctness and accuracy 
1 in relating past occurrences, or in reciting the 
' words of others." Now is this all that inspira- 
tion does in the cases alluded to ? Do the narra- 
tors of sacred history select their facts, or recite 
the language of others without God ? But eren more 
than this, I affirm, is imported in inspiration, even 
in reporting that Judas hanged himself. The 
meaning expressed, and the expression itself, have 
God for their author, else it could not be said, 
u All Scripture is given by inspiration of God," 2 
Tim. iii. 16. is of more weight with me, than that 
of all the speculations of human wisdom. 

It is obvious, that the Bishop of Lincoln speaks 
here of the inspiration of the writers of Scripture, 
whereas the question respects the inspiration of the 
Scriptures. The common confounding of these 
two things has produced much of that confusion in 
which the subject is involved, and has driven writer* 
to unscriptural distinctions in the meaning of the 
word. The sacred writers had no need to be in- 



212 



spired with the knowledge of facts which they al- 
ready knew, but to make their relations the word 
of God, they must all be given by his inspiration, 
both in matter and language. This distinction is 
confounded by Dr Dick. While his work is en- 
titled an Essay on the Inspiration of the Holy 
Scriptures, he begins by defining inspiration, as it 
relates to the inspired writers, and not as it relates 
to the things written by them. " I define inspiration/' 
says he, t( to be an influence of the Holy Ghost 

* on the understandings, imaginations, memories, and 
g other mental powers of the sacred writers, by 

* which they were qualified to communicate to the 

* world the knowledge of the will of God/' Now, 
if instead of giving a definition, independent of 
Scripture authority, he had simply referred to the 
passage 2 Tim. iii. 16, that asserts inspiration, 
and gives an exhibition and illustration of the mean- 
ing of the Greek word as used in the passage, he 
would necessarily have been led into the right path. 
For here inspiration respects the Scriptures; and 
all Scriptures is equally said to possess it. But in- 
spiration as it respects inspired persons may be va- 
rious in degree to any extent that may please God. 
This is one of the many instances, in which the 
worst effects proceed from considering questions 
with respect to divine truth in an abstract manner, 
without any reference to the passages on which they 
are founded. On this subject there was no need 
of a human definition of the term. It would have 
been much more useful to exhibit the meaning of 
the word with any illustration that might be afford- 



213 



ed by the use of it in Greek writers. The wm 
Qtoirnveloi, or inspired dreams of the heathen would 
have given us a more precise idea of the meaning 
of the term, than the most accurate abstract defi- 
nition. In treating of the inspiration of the Scrip- 
tures, there is no necessity to enter into discussions 
about the divine operation on the faculties of their 
mind. This is not the subject. On this there is 
nothing revealed, and all definitions with respect to 
this, must therefore be the work of fancy. That 
the Holy Ghost spake and wrote through man, is 
a fact attested by the Scriptures, but how he influ- 
enced their minds, we are not informed. It is not 
then to be expected that we are to obtain much 
light on the subject, from the definitions of divines. 
The only proper definition, is a definition of the 
word, that is, an explanation of the word as it is 
used in the language. 

This writer does not expressly deny verbal inspi- 
ration in the fullest extent, but the theory which 
he favours does not require this; and with respect 
to some things, he considers that it does not exist. 
Injallible direction is what he pleads for on this 
point. Now direction is not inspiration, though it 
might equally secure a fair representation of truth. 
And I complain, that he does not rest verbal inspi- 
ration on its main evidence, 2 Tim. iii. 16. There 
are many other sound and substantial arguments, 
and these the author states in a very convin- 
cing manner. But the direct and main evidence, 
which applies to every case is 2 Tim. iii. 10., 
which 1 have not observed among the author's 



214 



proofs of verbal inspiration. " All Scripture is given 
' by inspiration of God/' The writing is the 
thing whose inspiration is asserted. It cannot then 
be a question whether words belong to a writing. 
It is by overlooking this and treating of inspiration 
as it respects the sacred writers that false theories 
have originated. It is this that has led the author 
to such concessions as this. u With respect to other 
6 passages of Scripture, and particularly those which 
' treat of such subjects as might have been known 
6 without revelation, it is not necessary to main- 
* tain, that the language was inspired precisely in 
6 the same sense as in those already considered.' 5 
After what 1 have already said, it cannot be neces- 
sary to spend time in shewing, that if such things 
are inspired at all, they must be inspired precisely 
in the same sense with every thing else that is said 
to be inspired. What I would observe now is, that 
such assertions as this, result from holding the ne- 
cessity of inspiration on general principles only, and 
not on the expressed testimony of the Scriptures 
themselves. As long as we believe verbal inspira- 
tion on the authority of its general necessity only, 
it is obvious that to this general necessity there may 
be exceptions. And here are the exceptions. 
There are some things that do not seem to need 
this verbal inspiration. But if we look to the tes- 
timony of Scripture, 2 Tim. iii. 16. we will find 
that it demands the same inspiration in every part 
of the word of God. 

" We may conceive," says he, " the sacred wri- 
' ters to have been permitted more freely to exer- 



215 



tf cise their own faculties." 2 Tim. iii. 16., does not 
permit us, Dr Dick, to roam at large on this sub- 
ject, and to indulge our own random conceptions. 
But the fullest inspiration by no means implies any 
constraint in the exercise of the faculties of the sa- 
cred writers. They were as free on the doctrine 
of atonement, as in historical facts. " The words/' 
says he, " were not formally dictated any more 
' than the sentiments.'* This virtually gives up the 
inspiration of such parts of Scripture both as to 
words and sentiments, and substitutes something: else 
in its stead. We can know nothing of the process 
of inspiration on any subject. " But they seem- 
' ed," says he, " to proceed like other historians 
1 and moralists, and to express themselves in their 
1 natural manner." They did so on the doctrines 
of salvation as well as in the relation of the most 
trivial facts. Paul used his natural manner in the 
Epistle to the Romans, as well as Luke in his ac- 
count of Paul's shipwreck. 

It would have been an essential advantage to 
this essay, had the author treated inspiration as a 
matter of revelation merely. This would not only 
have given a greater unity to the work, but would 
have led to a fuller exhibition of what the Scrip- 
tures actually teach on the subject. In exhibiting 
directly the meaning and bearings of all the passa- 
ges that reveal any thing on this point, the full ex- 
tent of verbal inspiration could not have lain hid ; 
and a fuller scope would havo been given for a re- 
ply to objections. In vindicating inspiration, there 
certainly was no more necessity for a vindication of 



£16 



miracles, and the exhibition of the general evidence 
of the authenticity of the Scriptures, than there 
would have been, had the subject been the incarna- 
tion or the atonement. Inspiration is as much a mat- 
ter of revelation, as justification by faith. Both stand 
equally on the authority of the Scriptures. In 
teaching and defending the doctrine of inspiration, 
then, the authenticity of the Scriptures as a reve- 
lation from God, should have been taken for grant- 
ed; and the contest should not have been with 
Hume and Gibbon, but with Priestley and the 
evangelical theologians, who speak of partial inspi- 
ration. The authenticity of the Scriptures, and 
their inspiration, are quite different questions. 
Multitudes who receive the Scriptures as containing 
a revelation from God, deny their inspiration, or 
modify it, so as in effect to destroy it. With these 
solely, and not with deists, the battle of inspiration 
ought to be fought. It was not a little surprising 
then to me, to find a considerable portion of this 
Essay taken up with the infidel, and still more sur- 
prising to meet the following observation : — " Paul 
6 affirms, in the Second Epistle to Timothy, that 
6 e all Scripture is given by inspiration of God;' 
6 but every person must be sensible, that this as- 
e sertion is not in itself a sufficient ground for be- 
* lieving the inspiration of the writings to which he 
' refers." And what other ground can you have, 
Dr Dick, for believing inspiration ? Is not the au- 
thority of Paul as fully able to establish inspira- 
tion, as to establish the doctrine of the Trinity ? 
It is true, indeed, that the Scriptures themselves 



217 



must first be established; but this is equally true 
with respect to every other doctrine. Would any 
writer think it necessary in establishing the doctrine 
of salvation by grace, through faith in the Lord 
Jesus Christ, to vindicate miracles, and establish 
the authenticity of the Scriptures ? Certainly not; 
because the people with whom he contends admit 
this. In like manner, those who deny or modify 
inspiration, admit the Scriptures as containing a re- 
velation from God, and it is a waste of time to ar- 
gue this point with them. True, indeed, the infi- 
del denies inspiration, but he denies also the authen- 
ticity; and it is useless to vindicate the former till 
the latter is established. Indeed, there is no way 
of establishing inspiration, but by the Scriptures ; 
and Scripture authority will not pass with the infi- 
del. I am aware, that many arguments for inspi- 
ration may be founded on the authenticity, and that 
it is evident, that if the Scriptures are authentic, 
they must be inspired. But I do not blame the 
author for taking advantage of arguments of this 
kind. On the contrary, 1 fully approve of his con- 
duct on this point. But he might have equally 
availed himself of all such arguments, taking the 
authenticity for granted. What I mean is, that a 
work on inspiration ought to have treated the sub- 
ject as a matter of revelation, as much as a treatise 
on faith or redemption ; and that by acting on an- 
other principle, the author has produced confusion 
in his work, and has unjustly degraded inspiration, 
as if it must be received on different grounds from 
those on which the other doctrines of revelation are 



218 



rested. The Scriptures are as much an ultimate 
authority on this question, as any other ques- 
tion of revealed truth. A very considerable propor- 
tion of this work is not at all on the subject of its title. 

I cannot conclude my remarks without extract- 
ing an observation from the preface to this work, 
which appears to me true, striking, and important. 
" An attentive observer/' says Dr Dick, " cannot 

* have failed to remark a very striking peculiarity 
' of the present times. It is the influence of the 
' pinciples of infidelity upon many professors of the 
■ Christian religion. The bold opposition made to 
6 some doctrines of revelation, renders them as ham - 
' ed or afraid to own them, without at least such 
' qualification and changes, as shall smooth their 

* asperities and lessen their apparent incredibility. 
' In some instances such concessions are made, as 
' amount to a complete surrender of the point in de- 
' bate. The inspiration of the Scriptures is an 
' article of our faith, against- which infidels have 
' directed all the arguments which their ingenuity 

* could furnish, and all the abuse which their malice 
' could invent. What is the consequence ? Many 

* professed champions of Christianity seem to have 

* concluded that the article is not tenable, because 
c it has been previously assailed ; and accordingly, 
- they have abandoned it wholly, or in part to the 
9 enemy. Few writers, indeed, who now under- 
9 take to defend the cause of revelation, hold the 
9 plenary inspiration of the Scriptures. That idea 
' has become unfashionable ; it is classed with 
i other opinions of our fathers, which are ex- 



219 



* ploded as the dreams of enthusiasm and supersti- 
1 tious credulity ; and he only is supposed to enter- 
' tain rational sentiments on the subject, who looks 
' upon the Sacred Books as partly human and part- 

* ly divine ; as a heterogeneous compound of the 
1 oracles of God, and the stories and sentiments of 
' men/' * The spirit of infidelity is working among 
1 Christians themselves." 

The application of this to the works which I 
have reviewed, is perfectly obvious. Some evange- 
lical divines of the present day, unlike their uncom- 
promising predecessors, have endeavoured to recon- 
cile the favour of the world with the cross of 
Christ By the perfection of their wisdom, they 
think they have succeeded in finding a way to de- 
clare the counsel of God substantially, without ex- 
citing the mortal enmity of the world, as constantly 
happened from the less skilful address of Christ and 
the Apostles. If the gospel cannot conquer the 
obstinacy of the infidel, skilful management, it is 
thought, may make them peaceable neighbours. 
It was quite imprudent then, in the Apostle to act 
on the principle of not " shunning to declare the 
1 whole counsel of God." Had he acted towards 
the philosophers of his day, as some evangelical 
divines have towards the learned Neologians, in- 
stead of being accounted a "babbler," he might 
have been treated as the learned and liberal intro- 
ducer of a new science. And if, instead of de- 
nouncing all the opposers of his doctrines as the 
enemies of God, he had proposed his scheme as 
deep speculations to exercise the igenuity of the 



220 



wise, he might have been hailed as another Socra- 
tes. 

While I gladly acquit Dr Dick of this compro- 
mising spirit, I must charge his Essay with the 
same radical errors as the other systems. He ad- 
mits the same mischievous distinctions, that are on- 
ly another name for denying proper inspiration to a 
great part of the Scriptures. The inspiration 
which he avows, has " such qualifications and 
■ changes, as smooth its asperities, and lessen its 
6 apparent incredibility/' In some instances, such 
concessions are made, as amount to a complete 
surrender of the point in debate. " Inspiration he 
' has abandoned in part to the enemy." He in- 
deed undertakes to defend " the plenary inspiration 
6 of the Scriptures but it is only the name which 
he extends in a plenary manner. He concedes as ex- 
plicitly as any other writer, that the word does not 
apply in the same sense to all parts of the Scrip- 
tures, which is virtually to deny the inspiration of 
such parts. He does not indeed, like Mr Daniel 
Wilson, " look upon the Sacred Books as partly 
' human, and partly divine but I was surprised 
to find in reading Dr Dick's Essay, that Mr Daniel 
Wilson was not the first who speaks of nature end- 
tug, and revelation beginning, with reference to 
inspiration. When T first found this distinction in 
Mr Wilson's Lectures, I little expected to discover 
afterwards, that the original honours of this infidel 
phraseology, belong to the Essay on the Inspira- 
tion of the Holy Scriptures. If Dr Dick is justi- 
fied in speaking of nature, as going a certain length 



221 



in the composition of the Bible, t cannot see why 
he should condemn those who " look upon the 
' Sacred Books as partly human and partly divine." 



In the part which I have taken in the controver- 
sy on Inspiration, it has given me great pain that I 
have been obliged to contend with the real friends 
of the Lord Jesus, on a subject in whicli all be- 
lievers might be expected to harmonize. From 
various circumstances, it is not surprising, that in 
many things there should be difference of views 
among Christians. But what can be the tempta- 
tion to lower the character of the word of God? 
Might it not be expected, that all would unite in 
exalting the perfection of our common standard? 
What is it that operates in the mind of a believer 
to induce him to toil in degrading the oracles of 
heaven ? 

In the investigation of all subjects connected 
with revelation, though I do not overlook the im- 
portance of bringing the Christian public along with 
me, yet my first study is accurately to ascertain 
and exhibit the mind of God. I never think of 
measuring my conclusions with the limits assigned 
by the learned. When I see truth, I am not 
ashamed to avow it, nor afraid to defend it. And 
the cross of adhering to it, few have felt more heavy, 
or have greater temptations to throw it away. 
Yet while 1 spare not error, my love to those 
in error is not abated. My brotherhood ex- 



222 



tends not to party, but to the whole household of 
God. While I labour to unfold truth, I presume 
not to dictate ; and though a Christian should re- 
ject every thing which I hold, but the way of sal- 
vation through faith, in the righteousness of the 
Son of God, I will receive him, as I trust God 
for Christ's sake, has received me. 

In reasoning from Scripture on this subject of in- 
spiration, and on every other, it is of great impor- 
tance that we never lose sight of the tremendous 
responsibility which we incur. It is no light matter 
to attempt to influence the belief of the people of 
God, with respect to subjects on which he has ex- 
pressed his mind. It is a fearful thing to labour to 
misrepresent the divine testimony in any matter. 
It is bad to err, but it is worse to exert ourselves to 
pervert others. On the other hand, it is a delight- 
ful idea, to be in any measure instrumental in lead- 
ing forward the minds of the Lord's people, to a 
more full understanding of his word. Nothing but 
the conviction that I am pleading the cause of God 
and truth, could console me in opposing so many dis- 
tinguished writers on the nature of the inspiration 
of the Holy Scriptures. I rise from my labours, 
myself much edified and confirmed, and with an in- 
creasing zeal to convince all my fellow christians. 
And why should I not hope that the most exalted 
views of the word of God shall prevail ? It is not 
a party question. Many of all parties seem inade- 
quately acquainted with the subject. But there is 
no obstacle to prevent any from embracing the most 



honourable views of the oracles of God. Though, 
therefore, the children of the Most High may 
unhappily continue to differ in many things; in 
this one thing all may be expected to unite. 
Let us all celebrate the perfections of our com- 
mon standard — the Bible. 



Piinteri by James Colston, East Rose Street, 
Hanover Street, Edinburgh* 



vx* 7ff, 

3 3 



r*** 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: May 2005 

PreservationTechnotogies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-211* 



